“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This is an extremely powerful and selfless statement. What I believe he is saying is, regardless of where injustice was taking place, it affected him and everyone around him. “Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” He
Just laws apply to everyone, but unjust laws do not apply to everyone. So segregation laws are unjust. He also use example to show that some law can be just on paper, but applied unjustly. Therefore, we must break unjust laws because that shows the highest respect for
In his argument, he says that any law that restores and lighten are just laws, and anything that corrupts or are treats people without respect are immoral. After giving his argument he concludes that segregation is something morally wrong. He is giving all this argument because he is trying to tell authority that he is a good normal citizen. He wants and will follow the just laws, and he also thinks laws are something essential for a world to function. Although he still has already proven his point, he starts to get into the philosophical principle of breaking the laws.
The justice theory states that justice is at the advantage of the stronger; however, there have been cases where even the strongest have been defeated. Take Ovid’s Apollo and Daphne for example, or from a biblical perspective, the Book of Judges, or even Elie Wiesel’s novel Night. These writings each
He defines a just law as “a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God,” while defining an unjust law as “a code that is out of harmony with the moral law” (King 128). He argues that unjust laws hurt not only the oppressed but also the oppressor because the oppressor has been given a “false sense of superiority” while the oppressed, a “false sense of inferiority” (King 129). Thus, people have the moral obligation to defy laws that are unjust and obey laws that are just. King proceeds to write about segregation, describing it as unjust because “segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality”; therefore, it is a law worth opposition. King attests that one who breaks an unjust law must be willing to accept the penalty given in order to avoid anarchy and lead to a positive societal impact.
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.
By this he means that even if people are being discriminated, treated unjustly, unequally or prejudiced, that in due time they would be treated with fairness and equality. “And this was one of the things that kept the people together, the belief that universe is on the side of justice”(2). This gave the protesters courage and hope because they knew that in the long run, they would be treated equally; they would have equal rights as the white people. Some people believe that the universe is not on the side of justice, however that is baseless. The phrase “the universe is on the side of justice” is what we know as karma.
He then goes on to expand on the consequences of the Basic Argument. He announces that the result of this is "that there is a fundamental sense in which no punishment or reward is ever ultimately just"(221). This would mean it is just as fair to punish or reward people for their actions as it is the color of their hair or face
Socrates believes that justice benefits the just, but also benefits the city (other people) too. He is faced with a seemingly simple choice, escape Athens or remain in prison and be sentenced to death. Socrates’ central argument against escaping his circumstances is twofold. First, Socrates argues that “one must never do wrong.” (49b)
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
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.
He believed that justice was decided based on the interests of those with power. Rulers and governments would only make rules and laws that would benefit them and there was no justice except in favour of power. Again, the strong had complete control over what was considered right and wrong. Those in power would only introduce laws that would further their own agendas and those who dared to violate those laws were harshly punished in the name of justice. Thrasymachus clashed with Socrates in terms of ideology about justice.
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 Republic Went down to the Piraeus, Socrates and Glaucon saw Polemachus, Adeimantus, Niceratucs and some other friends. For long time no see, they invited Socrates and Glaucon to home, Polemarchus’s father. Then Cephalus and Socrates went to the question: What is justice? For Polemarchus, justice is “doing good to friends, doing evil to enemies”. “Friend” is meant, by Polemarchus, that help friends if they are decent, damage enemies if they are bad people, doing so is justice.
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.
