Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Justice :classical and modern
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Justice :classical and modern
The texts of The Oresteia, Euthyphro, and The Republic of Plato all have strong underlying themes of piety as it relates to justice. The definition of piety, does not remain static, but rather has a fluid quality that allows it to change over time. When considering the three works in chronological order, it is possible to realize a change in the definition of justice from a definition closely related to piety to a more censored version of justice. As the society and culture of the Greeks change and the people become less reliant on the gods, the definition of piety as it governs justice shifts from the divine to the individual.
In the early years of Greek culture, the people relied strongly on mythology. The presence of fate and curses take
…show more content…
The Furies focus on justice in a simple manner, as illustrated by their statement: “Matricides: we drive them from their houses” (208). Orestes killed his mother, which elevates the crime and “break(s) the god’s first law” (170). Justice, to the Furies, means that punishment must prevail for an evil deed, saying, “you’ll give me blood for blood, you must” (262). Apollo, however claims that Orestes’ actions occurred because he was both avenging his father’s death and following the will of a god, since Apollo himself “commanded him to avenge his father” (201). The Furies’ definition of justice primarily is built on the action itself, whereas Apollo’s definition is more closely related to piety: justice is obeying the god’s will. Orestes situation can be measured through either lens: it is just because he avenges his father’s death and observes the gods orders, or unjust because he commits murder, specifically the murder of his own blood. Justice and piety become difficult to achieve simultaneously for humans in a world where gods are wrathful, and following the will of the gods and being pious often means killing another human unjustly. Athena simply frames the situation saying, “Two sides are here” meaning the different definitions of justice are oppose each other (440). The Oresteia in its entirety is fueled by the conflict of the earliest form of justice, the form similar to piety, beginning to
Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual. However, Plato examines the justice system from the perfect society and Aeschylus starts at the curse on the House of Atreus and the blood spilled within the family of Agamemnon.
Euripides’ plays Hippolytus, The Bacchae and Iphigenia at Aulis all revolve around the journey of key characters that fail to show respect to various deities within the Greek Pantheon. This disrespect, in all three plays, is met out with retaliation from the gods themselves, thus effecting those that disrespected them as well as their families. To convey these tales Euripides implements many themes, one such theme being divine retaliation. Euripides’ use of the theme of divine retaliation provides a stark illustration of the Greek Pantheon striving to prove their superiority relentlessly and gives insight into their merciless use of mortals as pawns to achieve this.
Euthyphro’s second definition of piety is “the pious is what the gods love”. Socrates takes this idea and
Plato's Book I of The Republics presents three fundamental views on justice which are exemplified in Thucydides' On Justice, Power and Human Nature. Justice is illustrated as speaking the paying one's debts, helping one's friends and harming one's enemies, and the advantage of the stronger.
Plato’s Republic focuses on one particular question: is it better to be just or unjust? Thrasymachus introduces this question in book I by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests. Therefore, he claims that justice is “stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice” (Plato, Republic 344c). Plato begins to argue that injustice is never more profitable to a person than justice and Thrasymachus withdraws from the argument, granting Plato’s response. Glaucon, however, is not satisfied and proposes a challenge to Plato to prove that justice is intrinsically valuable and that living a just life is always superior. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge.
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
Let us firstly analyze and delineate the significant instances in the interchange between the unjust speech and the unjust speech. Both the unjust and just speech begin this interchange with a heavy slandering of one another. Perhaps, one of the most notable moments of this slander is when the just speech, after claiming that it believes in and stands for justice and is hence “speaking the just things”, is asked by the unjust speech that “denies that justice even exists” to “answer the following question, if justice truly exists, then why didn’t Zeus perish when he bound his father?” (p. 152, 901-905). The just speech replies to this question by exclaiming that “...this is the evil that’s spreading around” and that he needs “a basin” if he is to continue hearing it (p. 152, 906-907). Firstly the just speech, as a mouthpiece for the existing Athenian legal-political convention, has claimed that this legal-political convention is where justice in its entirety is to be found. Secondly and simultaneously, however, the just speech finds itself unable to articulate what it means by justice and how the teachings of the Homeric Gods, that have informed the construction of Athenian political convention, are positive and/or negative examples of an
Thrasymachus’s definition of justice is incoherent and hard to conceptualize within the context of the debate. What remains unclear is Thrasymachus’s ideal definition of justice. At first, Thrasymachus definition of justice after passage 338c remains disputable. Justice, Thrasymachus states, “… is simply what is good for the stronger” (338c). Therefore, on its own, this statement could infer that, what can benefit the stronger is just and therefore can be beneficial to the weaker as well. Therefore Thrasymachus definition can be taken in different contexts and used to one’s discretion. Additionally, Thrasymachus changes his definition of justice multiple times during the discussion. Thrasymachus states t...
...) see the bond of blood as superior to that of marriage. This causes conflicts between the gods. In the beginning of the play, this conflict is between Apollo, who believes Orestes should not be punished, and the Furies, who believe he should be punished for matricide. When judgement on Orestes is passed ("Athene: The man before us has escaped the charge of blood." line 752), the wrath of the Furies moves from Apollo to Athene. This conflict lasts from line 778 to the end of the play.
After a critical reading of all three of these texts, it becomes apparent that there is a clear hierarchy of the different forms of justice. In Sophocles’ Antigone, it is shown that in society it is often the ideal of human justice that is put into action, but to people divine justice would often take precedence. This idea is echoed in Plato’s Euthyphro and Apology where this human (or political) justice is eventually put into actions, while this theoretical higher form of justice – philosophical – is brushed aside. While it may not be the most relevant of these forms of justice, it is shown again and again that human/political justice will almost always be in opposition to forms of justice that supersede humanities ideals. This aforementioned
Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice. Thus the role of Book I is to turn the minds from the customary evaluation of justice towards this new vision. Through the discourse between Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Socaretes’ thoughts and actions towards justice are exemplified. Though their views are different and even opposed, the way all three discourse about justice and power reveal that they assume the relation between the two to be separate. They find it impossible to understand the idea that being just is an exercise of power and that true human power must include the ability to act justly. And that is exactly what Socrates seeks to refute.
Ancient Greeks developed a god for every aspect of their lives. They heavily worshiped their gods and would make sacrifices of domestic animals to these gods. These gods were immortal beings who controlled their lives and determined their destiny. This "religion" is mainly based on a body of diverse stories and legends, and contained no formal structure. Of their gods there was: Zeus the master of the gods and spiritual father of all people and gods, Athena the god of wisdom, Apollo the god of light, poetry, and music, Dionysus the god of wine and pleasure (also the most popular). Those are but a few of the gods involved in the lives of Ancient Greeks. Worship and beliefs emphasized the weakness of humans in contrast to the strong powers of nature. As is exhibited in Oedipus where he can not outrun his fate no matter what action he takes.
In both Antigone and The Republic, elements of death, tyranny, morality, and societal roles are incorporated into each work’s definition of justice. Both works address the notions of justice in a societal form, and an individual form. However, these definitions of justice differ with some elements, they are closely tied with others.
In The Eumenides, the third book of The Oresteia, there exists a strong rivalry between the Furies and the god Apollo; from the moment of their first confrontation in Apollo’s temple at Delphi, it is clear that the god and the spirits are opposing forces. Their actions bring them into direct conflict, and both of them are stubbornly set on achieving their respective goals while at the same time interfering with or preventing the actions of the other. There is also considerable personal animosity between Apollo and the Furies, especially from the former toward the latter. Because of the differences between the respective ideals they stand for, their personal conflict is as intense as that brought about by their actions. The nature of the rivalry is ironic because they possess ideals that are very similar in some respects; both seek to establish order and justice in the world (although they have separate and very different conceptions of order and justice), and, therefore, they are striving for the same goals, yet neither realizes this truth.
For Plato’s thesis – justice pays – to be validated, he has to prove two things, the first being that justice is inherently good. In