Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
What are the influence of media in society
Class and social inequality
Class and social inequality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What are the influence of media in society
Class and social inequality
Class and social inequality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What are the influence of media in society
the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame
The idea of 'justice' in ancient Greece is confusing. In both the trial in The Eumenides and the depiction of the trial in The Penelopiad, the “accused” do not deny the murders they commit. What seems to be more important is the reasoning and justification of the murder. In The Penelopiad, the court is depicted as a familiar 21st century model. The Attorney for the Defense opens the argument, “Was he or was he not justified in the slaughtering, … we do not dispute the slaughters themselves … [of] upwards of a hundred and twenty well-born young men, give or take a dozen (page 175, Penelopiad)”
In Plato’s, The Republic, Book I, Socrates tries to prove to Thrasymachus “whether just people also live better and are happier than unjust ones” (352d). He argues that everything has a predisposed proficiency at a function, and that this functions are performed well by the peculiar virtue and badly by means of its vice (353a-353d) . The point of this paper is to present Socrates argument and evaluate it to the best of my ability. This argument can be categorized as an inductive generalization. Socrates states that the function of anything is what it alone can do or what it does best.
When all the functions of society are performed by the rightful class, the resulting outcome will be justice. Each class has a duty to perform the responsibilities they are naturally best fit for and should refrain from executing another’s job. The state will be unjust if meddling occurs as it directly goes against the true definition of justice according to Plato. When the auxiliaries try to perform the role of the rulers or the workers attempt to be a guardian, the state is damaged and the exchanging of roles in the society will lead to the ultimate destruction of the state. The fourth virtue of a just city is justice because when each component of the state performs its main purpose, justice can be
In Book 1 of the republic, by Plato, we are introduced to two central figures in the argument of justice, Socrates and Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus claims that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates then asks if his understanding, that what is beneficial to the stronger is just and must be beneficial to the weaker people, to which Thrasymachus replies that no, this is not so. He explains that justice is that which obtains the advantage of the stronger.
During Plato’s Crito, the titles namesake, goes and visits Socrates as his friend. Crito tells Socrates that arrangements have been made, and he is there to smuggle Socrates out of prison. Everybody knows—including Socrates—that he has been wrongly convicted. Instead of leaving with Crito, Socrates says that he should not make a hasty decision, and instead examine the different possibilities. Socrates says that whatever he decides it must be just.
The Republic, by Plato provides us with four different definitions of justice which are given by the four characters Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, and Glaucon. According to Cephalus, the definition of justice includes the laws and repaying one’s creditors. Socrates doesnot agree to the idea that of repayment of creditors as always to be a good idea. The second person to define Justice was Polymarchus, the son of Cephalus. In his opinion, justice is defined as helping your friends and harming your rivals.
2.2.2. Plato Plato (428/427 or 424/423 – 348/347 BCE), despite mentioning the death penalty in his views on Penal code, was against the capital punishment (Saunders 182). On the other hand, since Plato propounded inconsistent ideas, some critics considered him as the adherent of death penalty. Yet, this thesis will consider him as its opponent due to his curative penology. Plato, in his Republic and Laws, considered the social norms - social moralities - as the basis of law.
Republic is a defense of justice- similar to the format of Apology- that is investigating what justice is, and what it means to be a just person and live a good life. Polemarchus asserts that justice is giving people what is owed to them, however after a long discussion, Socrates molds this statement into a series of ambiguous situations that still don’t form a valid definition. He then discusses with Thrasymachus, Glaucon and Adeimantus about what makes a person just and why they live a better life. The conclusion is best described through the analogy of the many headed beast, lion, and human being that grow together inside of a person. This represents the soul- something that others cannot see, and only affects the person it is a part of.
This made the higher rank in society abused their own powers. This statement can be proved from the story Hamlet. An example is when Hamlet killed Polonius hoping it was King Claudius in Act 3, scene 4 line 24. Someone in a higher rank cannot be punished for their sinful doing. Hamlet said sorry for killing Polonius by “accident” but, he doesn’t seem to be sorry at all, he just dragged Polonius across the floor behind him (III.iv.207-20).
What is justice? This is the crucial question that Plato attempts to answer in his dialogue, The Republic. He conjures up an allegory that justice can be found in a person, and a person can represent a city. Thus, his entire dialogue focuses on this ‘just’ city and the mechanics of how the city would operate. His dialogue covers a myriad of topics about justice in addition to the human soul, politics, goodness and truth.
In Book IV of Plato’s Republic, Socrates and his peers come to the conclusion that a city is going to need people who have an understanding of what justice should be. Socrates at the end of Book IV can make the difference between individual, political, and social justice. He knows that individual and political justice is so much in common because they both weigh in heavy on truth, honor, and appetitive soul. That appetitive soul is an element that helps the secure the just community with love and support.
Considering how the Piraeus, Athens’ port area, contains individuals hailing from various locations, it would that such a place would be where Socrates encounters different definitions of justice. In Book One of Plato’s The Republic, Socrates challenges Cephalus’ belief that justice is simply being honest and paying back the dues that one owes to the gods and to his fellow men. By providing examples of where it would be unjust to repay one’s debts, Socrates refutes Cephalus’ definition of justice. In these scenarios, paying back those debts would pose a risk of harm to innocent people, which would be unjust since justice does not involve harming others.
Plato's Republic is centered on one simple question: is it always better to be just than unjust? This is something that Socrates addresses both in terms of political communities and the individual person. Plato argues that being just is advantageous to the individual independent of any societal benefits that the individual may incur in virtue of being just. I feel as if Plato’s argument is problematic. There are not enough compelling reasons to make this argument.
In “Plato’s Gorgias” Socrates debates with fellow philosophers, Polus, Callicles, Chaerephon and Gorgias, of ancient Greece over rhetoric, justice, and power. During these debates, Socrates makes a claim to Polus that it is better to suffer injustices rather than to commit injustice because the positive and negative consequences that come along with committing and suffering injustices. This claim by Socrates that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit injustice is pretty easy to comprehend once all the parts are analyzed. At first, this idea seems crazy that it is actually beneficial to suffer injustice and wrong-doing.