Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Justice as percieved by plato book 1
Plato justice and morality
Justice as percieved by plato book 1
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Justice as percieved by plato book 1
Plato justice and morality
Justice as percieved by plato book 1
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Justice as percieved by plato book 1
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 Euthyphro, Plato’s method of arguing obliviously proves the point that evidence and a clear thought out explanation is needed when trying to describe and explain the difference between two things—especially when involving right and wrong. Although it helps to prove it and make you truly think about the definitions as well as how to describe it, for the person, in this case Euthyphro, on the other side of the argument it can be very annoying; because you explain one thing and then are questioned and have to explain more or then you being to questioned on your own thinking making you have to restart. It is in a way similar to now how little kids go through a phase were they ask “why” to anything and everything; typically the one being questioned
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 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)
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.
Though many people take Socrates to be an expert in the fields in which he questions others, Socrates denies any ability to do things very well, and understands the oracle as saying that the wisest of men are men like Socrates who simply and honestly accept that their wisdom is not enough. Socrates replies to Meletus that, in doing harm to others and hurting all of society, Socrates would also be hurting himself, as a member of society. But the oath Meletus himself drew up against Socrates claims that Socrates believes, and teaches others to believe, in supernatural matters. Since the only kinds of supernatural beings, according to Socrates, are gods and children of the gods, it must follow that Socrates believes in gods, opposite to Meletus'
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 Book IV of Plato’s Republic, Socrates and his peers come to the conclusion that a city is going to need people who have an understanding of what justice should be. Socrates at the end of Book IV can make the difference between individual, political, and social justice. He knows that individual and political justice is so much in common because they both weigh in heavy on truth, honor, and appetitive soul. That appetitive soul is an element that helps the secure the just community with love and support.
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.
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.
1 INTRODUCTION Power and authority are the most important aspects of politics as such way of thinking comes a long way from the earliest thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle to mention few. They are the fundamental features of state in politics, focusing on who should have the power and authority over the people and who should rule them. During the time prior and after the birth of states, political authority has always been a major concern with regards to who should rule and how and who shouldn’t. Therefore this issues need to be addressed in a way that will at the end benefit the society. Plato is the thinker or theorist who came with addressing who should rule in a political environment in what Plato outlined that only Philosophers should rule.