Americans want to investigate, judge, and punish fairly (Cole & Smith, 2011). Justice is defined as the proper administration of the law; fair and equitable treatment of all individuals under the law (Justice, 2008). As a society, there is a mutual agreement that justice should be done if a crime has been committed. According to Cole and Smith (2011), there are three goals of the criminal justice system: doing justice, controlling crime and preventing crime.
Justice is derived from the root word just, meaning agreeing to what is considered morally right or good; treating people in a way that is morally right; or reasonable or proper. However, society has become so entangled up in the power which certain individuals possess, they forget all about what is “just”. The justice theory is that justice is at the advantage of the stronger. When an individual is described or depicted as being “strong”, that individual is typically of a larger build, possesses some sort of weapon that causes them to be mighty, and is typically large in size. No matter what circumstances arise, these individuals are expected to be victorious in each battle they fight.
Comparing Socrates words in the Republic for the philosopher to rule to the words of the Apology where philosophy is viewed as something that is punishable by death, this is where the defense or importance of philosophy is realized. For if the philosophers were the ones to rule, nobody would question whether or not what they were doing was right or wrong because the philosopher-kings make the rules through wisdom and knowledge. Plato wants to paint a portrait of the philosopher as not only something the city should want to have, but also as someone who would be fit to rule above all others. This contrasts, again, to the points made by the jurors to Socrates in the Apology for they saw Socrates as someone who brings the city
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.
Justice; such a simple word that has many different meanings. What does justice mean? Is there only specific individuals that deserve justice? Many individuals believe that the word “justice” symbolizes a sort of respect for one, while others believe that this word has no meaning at all and that it is actions that actually make a difference. Each individuals must word hard to obtain justice due to the fact that respect is earned when an individual is defending their rights and interests.
Finally, Socrates claims that the unjust man is ignorant, weak and bad. Socrates argument is effective in the way that he does not shatter Thrasymachus’ argument without reason, he is given many examples that change his way of thinking. Thrasymachus is told to put his ‘set in stone’ ideas under different situations, and once he does, he can clearly see that he should not have been so stubborn, as soon as he does so, he can see that his arguments aren’t suited to all situations. By the end of the argument, Thrasymachus isn’t so much debating the definition of justice, as he is defining the required traits to be a ruler of
Justice is important because it ensures everyone is treated fairly and equitably, regardless of their background or circumstances. When justice is served people feel that they have been heard and that their rights have
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
According to Socrates there are two types of justice, the political justice and the justice of a particular man. As we know, city is bigger than a man. Socrates believes that it is easier to find justice at the political level which means in the city, thus he tries to define a just city from scrap, and will see in which stage justice enters. Also, Socrates tries to find justice in the city before finding justice in the individuals because individuals are not at all self-sufficient. We humans have similar needs such as food, clothing and shelter and in order to accomplish these goals human beings form unions, where each and every individual specializes in a field.
I think that there is a fallacy of irrelevance. In the book, Socrates sets out to defend the idea that it is always in one’s best interest to be just and to act justly and he suggests that the just person as one who has a balanced soul will lead one to act justly or why mental health amounts to justice. I feel that justice includes actions in relation to others, it includes considerations of other people’s good, and includes strong motivations not to act unjustly. I believe that Socrates’ defense of justice does not include constraining reasons to think that a person with a balanced soul will refrain from acts that are commonly thought to be unjust like theft, murder, and adultery.
Socrates sees himself as wiser than other men including the politicians, craftsmen, and poets because he did not go around thinking he knew what he did not know. As a result of this, his character reflected someone who saw himself as superior to others and instead of feeding that ego, he could have been a joined politics and have an influence on the Athenian democracy. If he had done this, people like Meletus and his later accusers would have taken his criticism in a positive way. Socrates has the right to criticize the democracy of Athens because, in his perspective, verdicts are passed in the court by jurors with respect to whoever seems good to him. The democracy of the people was biased because, even if a person was wrong in court, he would not receive the right punishment her deserved because of his relations with the jurors.
This may be true; if all members of a group only serve themselves, there will be chaos. However, the claim that Socrates is trying to refute is that injustice is stronger or more profitable than justice. This does not imply anarchical injustice or chaos. Thus, Socrates is not arguing against the situations where injustice is most likely to succeed, but rather where it is least likely to succeed. That is not sufficient to show injustice is weaker than justice.
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?”.
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 and his peers attempt to define justice. Unlike the definitions that his peers give, Socrates is searching to define justice as a structure, not a set of behaviors. Socrates uses a tripartite city-soul analogy to define justice and show that it is found when there is harmony between the three parts of the city—guardians, auxiliaries, producers—mirrored to the three parts of the soul—reason, spirit, appetite. Although Socrates provides a well-structured account of justice in an attempt to demonstrate that there cannot be social justice—in the city—if people don’t first bring internal justice—in the soul—in themselves, he has a notable contradiction in his premises. In Socrates’ ideal city it is a necessary condition of an auxiliary acting in a just way that he must cause any producers who get out of hand, or
