More handpicked essays just for you.
Classic and modern understanding of justice
Classic and modern understanding of justice
Essay on Plato's Dialogue
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Katie Shunk
Philosophy 100
10-12-16
The Challenge to Socrates Socrates, a world renown Greek philosopher, is respected for intentionally making himself appear more intelligent by making others look and feel dumb. Those who are aware of Socrates’ intentions should not be surprised of his actions in The Republic of Plato. As the narrator, Socrates writes a monologue between himself, the master, and Plato, the student. Socrates soon addresses two main questions that lead to greater discussion throughout the book: “what is justice?” and “is it greater to be just or unjust”? As we read into Book 2, we are introduced to Glaucon and Adeimantus, who intend to challenge Socrates on his two main questions. Glaucon’s challenge to Socrates is to: show
…show more content…
Glaucon furthers his challenge in the example of the ring of Gyges story. In the tale, when the a great storm and an earthquake make an opining in the earth, shepherd Gyges finds a magical gold ring in the midst of rubbish. Later that day when the shepherds meet together in their assembly, Gyges comes strolling in with the ring on his finger. As Gyges sits amongst the fellow shepherds, he turned the collet of the ring inside his hand and instant became invisible to the rest of his companions. Gyges was completely unaware of his invisiblitiy and continued to converse with the rest of his company and they continued to speak as if he weren’t there. When he became aware of the situation, he was amazed. He then he turned the collet outward and discovered when he did so he reappeared. He turned the collet of the ring inward and outward multiple times to test it and see if the invisibility would continue to occur. To his astonishment, it did and he decided to use his magic to his benefit to seduce the queen and, with her help, murder the king so that he can take control of the …show more content…
Glaucon’s argument is proven when we compare one who is most unjust but seems most just with the opposite. This is the only way in which we can be sure that we are comparing justice and injustice themselves rather than their consequences due to reputation. Though, Socrates thinks this is Glaucon’s strongest arguments, he argues that the best life is not the unjust life, it’s the just life. Socrates explains that a tyrannical person who uses everybody in the city as they so desire, lives the life of a nightmare. His main argument against the happiness of an unjust life is that the unjust person has no one to trust and they are living their whole life in fear that someone or something is after him. Considering Socrates point, Glaucon still strongly believes that if an unjust person can get away with something, they will not suffer
The three men discuss justice as if it's a good thing. Glaucon wants Socrates to prove that it is, and argues if it is just to do wrong in order to have justice, or on the other hand, is it unjust to never do wrong and therefore have no justice. For example; a man who lies, cheats and steals yet is a respected member of the community would be living a just life, in comparison to a man who never lied, cheated, nor stole anything but lives in poverty and is living an unjust life. Glaucon assumes the life of a just man is better than the life of an unjust man.
For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen and Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society, will help to position Plato's Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.
Plato’s “Defense of Socrates” follows the trial of Socrates for charges of corruption of the youth. His accuser, Meletus, claims he is doing so by teaching the youth of Athens of a separate spirituality from that which was widely accepted.
Plato is able to refute the claim that made by Glaucon because he views justice as a political body instead of Glaucon views on it. “And to those who, not being rich, are important with old age, it may be said with equal justice, that while on the one hand, a good man cannot be altogether cheerful with old age and poverty combined, so on the other, no wealth can ever make a bad man at peace with himself” (Cahn, 2005, p. 33). This quote helps show the difference on how they look at justice between the two. With Plato it seems he views justice as fit for everyone just not a particular person. Everything is made equal no matter what part of society they come from.
...cting unjustly. Therefore, justice is determined to be intrinsically valuable from the negative intrinsic value of injustice that was demonstrated, as well as from parts of the soul working together correctly. Glaucon also wants Plato to show that a just life is better than an unjust life. It has been shown that when the soul is in harmony, it only acts justly. It is in a person’s best interests to have a healthy soul, which is a just soul, so that the person can be truly happy. This means that by showing justice has an intrinsic value, it can also be concluded that it is better to live a just life opposed to an unjust life. The conclusion that I have drawn is that Plato’s argument against the intrinsic value of injustice is sufficient to prove that the just life is superior, even if the unjust life may be more profitable.
In his defense, Socrates claims over and again that he is innocent and is not at all wise, “…for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great.” Throughout the rest of his oration he seems to act the opposite as if he is better than every man, and later he even claims that, “At any rate, the world has decided that Socrates is in some way superior to other men.” This seems to be his greatest mistake, claiming to be greater than even the jury.
In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
In Book II of Plato’s Republic, Glaucon seeks to define what justice is and whether it could truly be considered an end in itself. He starts by asserting that there are three types of good. First there are goods that we choose out pure enjoyment and pleasure, these goods have no negative after effects. Second are the goods that are valued for what they are in and of themselves not just the good that comes from them. Thirdly there are the goods that an individual will only pursue because of what they believe they will acquire, not for what they are themselves.(36) Glaucon believes that justice should be placed in the second tier of goods where everything of intrinsic value is also placed. However he goes on to explain that the majority of people
People may urge to sacrifice Egoism and to sacrifice himself, unthinkingly, for God and this Country, or whether if the political and religion represents the same ideas. The unthinkable thing about egoism is that people think differently. He asked people to imagine that a man is proven to have a ring that makes them invisible. When in control of this ring, the man can perform unjustly without fear of punishment. No one wouldn’t comprehend what Glaucon had claimed, but the most thing to achieve is to behave unjustly if he/she had the ring. He could pamper all of his greedy, self-important, and immoral urges. This story verifies that people are terrified of punishment for
The Apology is Socrates' defense at his trial. As the dialogue begins, Socrates notes that his accusers have cautioned the jury against Socrates' eloquence, according to Socrates, the difference between him and his accusers is that Socrates speaks the truth. Socrates distinguished two groups of accusers: the earlier and the later accusers. The earlier group is the hardest to defend against, since they do not appear in court. He is all so accused of being a Sophist: that he is a teacher and takes money for his teaching. He attempts to explain why he has attracted such a reputation. The oracle was asked if anyone was wiser than Socrates was. The answer was no, there was no man wiser. Socrates cannot believe this oracle, so he sets out to disprove it by finding someone who is wiser. He goes to a politician, who is thought wise by him self and others. Socrates does not think this man to be wise and tells him so. As a consequence, the politician hated Socrates, as did others who heard the questioning. "I am better off, because while he knows nothing but thinks that he knows, I neither know nor think that I know" (Socrates). He questioned politicians, poets, and artisans. He finds that the poets do not write from wisdom, but by genius and inspiration. Meletus charges Socrates with being "a doer of evil, and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the State, and has other new divinities of his own."
Out of the confrontation with Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, Socrates emerges as a reflective individual searching for the rational foundation of morality and human excellence. The views presented by the three men are invalid and limited as they present a biased understanding of justice and require a re-examination of the terminology. The nature in which the faulty arguments are presented, leave the reader longing to search for the rational foundations of morality and human virtue.
Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.
Socrates: A Gift To The Athenians As Socrates said in Apology by Plato, “...the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more…”(Philosophical Texts, 34) Throughout history, many leaders have been put to death for their knowledge. In Apology, Socrates- soon to be put to death- says he was placed in Athens by a god to render a service to the city and its citizens. Yet he will not venture out to come forward and advise the state and says this abstention is a condition on his usefulness to the city.
Glaucon attempted to prove that injustice is preferable to justice. At first, Glacon agreed with Socrates that justice is a good thing, but implored on the nature of its goodness? He listed three types of “good”; that which is good for its own sake (such as playing games), that which is good is good in itself and has useful consequences (such as reading), and that which is painful but has good consequences (such as surgery). Socrates replied that justice "belongs in the fairest class, that which a man who is to be happy must love both for its own sake and for the results." (45d) Glaucon then reaffirmed Thrasymachus’s position that unjust people lead a better life than just people. He started that being just is simply a formality for maintaining a good reputation and for achieving one’s goals. He claimed that the only reason why a person would choose to be unjust rather than just due to the fear of punishment. This is supported by the story of the shepherd who became corrupted as a result of finding a ring which made him invisible. He took over the kingdom through murder and intrigue since he knew there could be no repercussions for his unjust actions. In addition, Adiamantus stated that unjust people did not need to fear divine punishment since appeals could be made to Gods’ egos via sacrifices. Finally, Glaucon gave an example of the extreme unjust person who has accumulated great wealth and power which he juxtaposed with an extreme moral man who is being punished unjustly for his crimes. Clearly, injustice is preferable to justice since it provides for a more fruitful life.
In Book one of the Republic of Plato, several definitions of justice versus injustice are explored. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon and Thracymicus all share their opinions and ideas on what actions they believe to be just, while Socrates questions various aspects of the definitions. In book one, Socrates is challenged by Thracymicus, who believes that injustice is advantageous, but eventually convinces him that his definition is invalid. Cephalus speaks about honesty and issues of legality, Polemarchus explores ideas regarding giving to one what is owed, Glaucon views justice as actions committed for their consequences, and Socrates argues that justice does not involve harming anybody. Through the interrogations and arguments he has with four other men, and the similarity of his ideas of justice to the word God, Socrates proves that a just man commits acts for the benefits of others, and inflicts harm on nobody.