Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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
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.
We are told that we are born with basic rights and that we have the freedom to believe in whatever we desire, however, the chains that bind us are morality and justice. People’s opinion of us stops us from having complete freedom. A person with strong morality would feel guilty if they were given the choice to commit an injustice against another, and thus decide not to do so in the first place, even if they are given the opportunity to do what they want with no harm done to the other person. In Plato’s Crito, Socrates only cares about truth, therefore, for him to escape prison would be considered an injustice. He will be breaking the law, confirming his accuser’s statements about him being a criminal despite the fact that their claims are untrue.
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.
Although Socrates insists in Gorgias that the question of justice has only been brushed and in the entire dialogue, not much has been accomplished on the subject. What is clear, however, is that rhetoric and its seemingly beneficial effect on the individual and the city has been severely criticized. Although Socrates injects his own views into the conversation at times, it is only to show contrast to his interlocutor and present a different way of seeing things. His questions and ways of speaking concentrate on what is best, not at what is pleasant. To have the majority of the population, at least the men that participate in legislation, uneducated in the forms of justice, the good, and truth is to under and wrongly serve the city.
Socrates bases this view of justice on the worth of living a good life. “And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted by unjust actions” (47e) If we corrupt our soul with injustice, our life would not be worth living, therefore one must never commit an injustice. “When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, one should fulfill it.”(49e) It is this agreement with the Laws that Socrates would be violating, if he were to
Socrates say’s this cannot be true because most of the people in this world make mistakes in judging who the real friends are and who the enemies are. Thrasymachus’s impression of justice is that the stronger person decides what justice is. Thrasymachus definition of justice raises two questions which needed clarification. First question is what exactly
The Social Contract Plato’s Crito depicts a conversation between Socrates and Crito. Socrates’ friends intend to help him escape from prison before he is executed. Their conversation touches upon subjects like justice, injustice and the appropriate response to injustice. Socrates argues that one must not answer to injustice with more injustice as that would be an injury to the laws and to the city of Athens.
Throughout this interaction, Thrasymachus agrees out of annoyance in order to placate Socrates. When asked if “injustice causes factions [and] hatreds” among a group while “justice brings friendship and a sense of common purpose,” Thrasymachus says “I will say it is, in order to not disagree with you” (Plato 351d). This suggests that Thrasymachus has doubts about this position. Socrates’ underlying argument is that even within groups with unjust goals, such as thieves, there must be some kind of internal justice among members or cooperation will be impossible. Without cooperation, all attempts to “act” or accomplish anything will be futile.
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.
The concept of the Noble Lie is presented by Plato in the Republic. In Republic, Plato is engaged in creating an ideal political community, through the noble lie. The Noble Lie, ironically, despite being a lie, is still recognized as ‘noble’ by Plato since it aims to promote social welfare and harmony amongst the citizens. Plato’s idea of the noble lie led to the division of citizens into three distinct categories, namely, the rulers, the auxiliaries and the workmen . This paper will argue that Socrates principle of the Noble Lie must be considered justifiable under circumstances in which it intends to achieve moral ends.
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.
Polus is saying that Socrates continues explaining that doing injustice “happens to be the greatest of evils” (469b5). Polus brings power into the conversion because power is something he desires and comprehends. Socrates then portrays a scene of brutal murder that is clearly wrong to illustrate that “having great power is not this: to do what seems good to oneself” (469e7). Finally, Socrates ends this section by claiming “that when someone does those things justly, it is better, but when unjustly worse” (470c). Throughout this section, Socrates makes small individual points that build together to form his main claim that it is better to suffer injustice than commit injustice acts.
What is republic? According to Plato republic is a way through that he made principles for behavior of human life. Plato studied about nature and value of justice. Plato studied other qualities like construction of society as a entire and in the nature of an individual human being.