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
People should pursue justice, which is to help order the society. Once Francis Bacon said, “If we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us.” It means that if we do not maintain justice, then we will lose everything including life because of injustice. It can destroy us and the whole society. I strongly agree with this quote because people are often in danger because they do not follow justice.
In war, those who kill the most enemies become praised as war heroes, but this convention fails to realize that humans accumulate guilt and lose innocence as a response to performing and
Political activists and philosophers alike have a challenging task of determining the conditions under which citizens are morally entitled to go against the law. Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr. had different opinions on the obligation of the citizens in a society to obey the law. Although they were willing to accept the legal punishment, King believed that there are clear and definable circumstances where it would be appropriate, and sometimes mandatory, to purposely disobey unjust laws. Socrates did not. Socrates obeyed what he considered to be an unjust verdict because he believed that it was his obligation, as a citizen of Athens, to persuade or obey its Laws, no matter how dire the consequences.
Is it better to follow laws that are unjust but right, or do the thing that is fair but are against the law? Socrates in Plato’s “The Crito” and Martin Luther King, Jr. in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” answer this question from conflicting perspectives. According to Plato (427-423 BCE), Socrates believed that it is his duty to obey the law of his city, Athens, on all occasions, whereas King (1963) made the argument first put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas that “an unjust law is no law at all” (p. 69). One of these reasons for the differing opinions on this subject is due to the times and places in which these two men existed and came to their views on Civil disobedience.
Bothered by Socrates’ logic, Thrasymachus presents a revised version of his previous argument. Thrasymachus says that injustice is stronger than justice and that it most definitely results in a happier life. The example he uses (of a powerful dictator who is made happy through injustice is a reference to his earlier example that justice is used to the advantage of the stronger). Thrasymachus has not greatly changed the principle of his argument, just using alternate examples.
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
By the Thrasymachus’s point of view he thinks there always one side is stronger then other. As he described when there is partnership between two men there is always unjust man has more than just less. He also talked about when there is income tax the just man will pay more and unjust will pay less even though the income is same. He said people who does justice suffer more than who is unjust. By his view “ But when a man beside taking away the money of the citizens has made slaves of them, then, instead of these names of reproach, he is termed happy and blessed, not only by the citizens but by all who hear of his having achieved the
In effect, Thrasymachus tries to invalidate the entire notion that justice should be a guiding moral principle: a strict or universal definition within these terms is not only unnecessary but also factually incorrect. This view presents an pessimistic position on the nature of humanity, and seems to suggest that there are no intrinsically good ways to live one’s life or structure a society. One could characterize these beliefs as a kind of nihilism. The idea of justice, from this point of view, is purely used under pragmatic
When it comes to justice, Polemarchus believes that justice is “…helping friends and harming enemies.”. Socrates questions this point of view because according to Polemarchus’ view point, only the people who are close to him and in his circle of friends would be worthy of any kind of Justice. Polemarchus is wrong in this viewpoint because if only the people that you know who are of your similar social status and you interact with on a day to day basis are considered friends, what of those that you do not know? Or what of those who are not of your social status, that you do not interact with? Socrates questions this by asking, “Do you mean by friends those who seem to be good to an individual, or those who are, even if they don't seem to be, and similar with enemies?”.
To prove this, Socrates describes how “everyone would surely say that if a man takes weapons from a friend when the latter is of sound mind, and the friend demands them back when he is mad, one shouldn’t give back such things, and the man who gave them back would not be just” (331c). Even though the man who gave back the weapons did it to repay his debt, it would be unjust since the weapons could be used to harm other people, leaving the man with the guilt of knowing that any casualties were the consequences of their actions. Additionally, if someone was to follow Cephalus’ definition of justice and be completely honest with his friend who was of an unsound mind, it might result in the friend lashing out. Because the friend is not completely rational at that current moment in time, they would not completely understand the logical truth.
The just person’s soul entails motive for certain kinds of objects the most important of which is knowledge. Socrates describes the hardship and extreme effort required to gain knowledge of the forms and the form of the good, thus the just person will seek learning and not spend time to take care of the satisfaction of desires that typically lead to unjust actions. This approach to unite the gap between a just soul and just actions may have some drawbacks. One negative aspect may be that several unjust actions may be motivated by desires that are compatible with the desire for knowledge. For example, why wouldn’t a person with a great fascination for knowledge steal a book if it would contribute to their
The actions inspired by vengeance and justice in Homer’s Iliad shows how detrimental the effects can be on others. The Justice seeked by warlike Menelaus causes pain and suffering to many on all sides of the war. Paris by abducting Helen hurt Menelaus’s pride, “Menelaus had in mind taking revenge on the man who’d injured him” (Homer, Iliad 3. 26-27). Seeking this revenge Menelaus
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.
