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.
Plato contests this view on justice because he believes doing harm to anyone would be an injustice. This theory leads to their conclusion the just man is one who is useful. Thrasymachus refers to justice in an egoistical manner, saying “justice is in the interest of the stronger” (The Republic, Book I). He believes injustice is virtuous and wise and justice is vice and ignorance, but Socrates disagrees with this statement as believes the opposing view. As a result of continual rebuttals against their arguments,
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.
Socrates thought that the discussion on justice had finished when he adequately answered Thrasymachus’argument, but Glaucon is not satisfied with the conclusion and adds his opinion to the conversation. Glaucon states that all goods can be separated into three classes: things people desire simply for its own sake, such as physical training and medical treatment; things people desire both for its own sake and because we get something out of it, such as happiness; the last class is the things we desire people like only because we get something out of it such as, knowledge and health. Glaucon wants Socrates to prove that justice falls in the third class because we want something out of it. Glaucon states that most people place justice in the first
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
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.
What is justice and what motives one to act justly or unjust? These questions are things we find ourselves needing answers to. Through Plato’s Republic he details a conversation between Glaucon and Socrates. What seems to be displayed are two people on two sides of the idea of morality and what is the idea of good? Plato’s character in the Republic tells the story called “The Ring of Gyges” to share his view point on what he believes is the true nature of good.
The Republic begins with Socrates challenging his acquaintances to define justice, quickly disputing their definitions with strong points and counter examples. For example, Cephalus claims that justice is about being honest and following laws. Socrates contradicts this with if one had possessed a weapon from a madman. It would be legally right to give the madman his weapon, yet would it be just? Socrates explains it would not be just, because the madman could do a lot of harm.
Thoughts and points on being moral of Glaucon. On this topic Plato also said that when he thought and completed any work or discussion however it is beginning. But, Glaucon also courage this topic but he did not accept ‘Thrasymachus’ of the topic. Socrates also in this topic, he said justice is better than injustice, but Glaucon is not convinced in this topic he said why it is better give reason to me? Socrates give three reasons to him also which are kinds of goods which are used for human own sake and for others which man do not want to do but he has to do that and also advantageous for him or us.
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 Plato’s Republic, Socrates is on a mission to find out the true meaning of justice. He implores the same Socratic method that we are use to in order to help find this answer. On his journey to find the meaning of Justice, Socrates runs into Polemarchus. Polemarchus defines justice as, “to give to each what is owed to him” (p. 31).
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates comes to the conclusion that we need to have a strong just society that is in the right order. In Books IV, V, and VI, Socrates explains that every society needs to be built on justice, everyone needs to have an occupation, and what a male and female household should look like. These are my prerequisites to what I consider essential to create a just society. Because without these qualities in an established society, you can hurt an entire civilization. And to Socrates argument, with an ideal king will come forms of co-operated citizens of a city.
Plato regarded justice as the true principle of social life. Plato in his day found a lot of evil in society. He saw unrighteousness rampant and injustice enthroned.
