Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Explain Plato’s conception of justice
Plato concept on justice
Plato about justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Explain Plato’s conception of justice
The Soul and Plato
In his work The Republic, Plato often refers to the terms just and justice. What could being just have to do with the soul? Or more importantly what is a just soul? Plato argues for something to be just, it need to be in harmony. Site just to make him happy For us, to find our justice, we must ‘do our own work.’ Insert Quote Here Plato states that a man needs to focus on his inner self and not that of others hence the term ‘our own work’. Justice itself is a virtue that is to be held by all individuals. A soul can only be in a healthy state if individual justice exists. Therefore, refraining from morally wrong actions such as stealing or lying will lead to a more harmonious soul. (Slote) To Plato, a good soul lives well. The soul is a part of overall happiness and justice for a person. This person is able to live morally and make decisions that don’t just benefit himself, but to society and the individuals around him. (Lorenz) The goal is to bring a balance to all three parts of the soul. Plato pushes the idea of harmonizing the soul. The soul guides the mind and ...
...s. When justice reigns in man's soul, he is a happy man and rules over his soul like a good ruler rules over a society. When injustice reigns in his soul, he is an unhappy man, just as men under an unjust ruler are unhappy. Injustice always brings bondage, so the man who lives in injustice is in bondage either to his own failings or to an evil society. Whether the just man receives extra rewards beyond the happiness of living in a just soul is beside the point. His soul is his world, and if it is a just one, it is a happy place to live.
In Plato’s Republic, justice and the soul are examined in the views of the multiple characters as well as the Republic’s chief character, Socrates. As the arguments progress through the Republic, the effect of justice on the soul is analyzed, as the question of whether or not the unjust soul is happier than the just soul. Also, Plato’s theories of justice in the man, the state, and the philosopher king are clearly linked to the cardinal virtues, as Plato describes the structure of the ideal society and developing harmony between the social classes. Therefore, the statement “justice is the art which gives to each man what is good for his soul” has to be examined through the definitions of justice given in the Republic and the idea of the good
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.
In Plato's The Republic, justice is depicted as a major part in a perfect society. Justice is said to breed a good society, whereas injustice will breed a bad one. Plato defines justice in dialogue as "keeping what is properly one's own and doing one's own job." (Pg. 146) Under the rules set for this perfect society, people are to practice the one profession at which they perform best. This profession also corresponds to a certain social class. Under no circumstances can one change this profession. Along with a set occupation, Plato has also determined that the perfect community would regulate what children (and the community) are taught, and to what the children will be exposed.
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.
total good of the man. Plato holds that if the desire were truly for a good
Also, that justice is a certain type of specialization, meaning that performing a particular task that is a person’s own, not of someone else’s. Plato (2007), Polemarchus argues with Socrates in book I that, “Justice was to do good to a friend and harm to an enemy” (335b p.13). Plato (2007) he then responds, “It is not the function of the just man to harm either his friends or anyone else, but of his opposite the unjust man” (335d p.14). His views of justice are related to contemporary culture, because when someone does something that they are supposed to do, they receive credit or a reward for it, but if the opposite of that is performed, by not doing the particular task that is asked, they are then rewarded but with punishments. Also, that justice is doing the right thing in a society. Justice of contemporary culture does not diverge from the views offered in The Republic and Socrates views are adequate, because if a task is not performed the way it needs to be, and is supposed to be a person should not be rewarded for it. Additionally, that an individual should be just not
In the Republic, Plato discusses many topics, including the issue of justice versus injustice (Plato 34). Plato’s argument indicates that justice works interchangeably with proper ethics (Plato 35). According to Plato, in order for a person to live the “best life”, they must live with justice and ethics (Plato 35). These two terms are similar in the sense that it is subjective to each individual. One’s definition of justice results from their own beliefs of ethics, which varies from person to person. Plato claims that doing “justice” is the better way of living, even if it brings misfortune in the end (Plato 34-35). This brings up the ethical dispute that misfortunes from justice is better than rewards earned from injustice. However, as seen in modern day, there is still no universal idea as to whether or not something is justifiable or abides by the ethical conduct that is expected. Often times, an action may seem justified to one individual while it seems unjustified to another. In order for someone to get what they want, they don’t think about their actions, whether or not it is following their ethical codes. In this case, the idea of “justice” and “ethics” is purely a mirage of the mind that people created so that they have a reason to feel good about themselves. In today’s society, many people get away with doing “injustice” while the actions of “justice” are disregarded. The definition of “justice” and “ethics” is still open-ended as demonstrated by justice system of the United States. There are people getting away with crimes and innocent people being put into prisons. Many times, these cases communicate the racial discrimination in the states.
Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote “One man’s justice is another’s injustice.” This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient to Socrates also. Eventually, the two agree “that it is never just to harm anyone” (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a common good, for harming people according to Socrates, only makes them “worse with respect to human virtue” (Republic 335 C). Polemarchus also allows for the possibility of common good through his insistence on helping friends. To Polemarchus nothing is more important than his circle of friends, and through their benefit he benefits, what makes them happy pleases him.
The idea of being just is one that is often misconstrued. What exactly is justice? What does it take for a person to be truly just? Can someone be truly just, or are we only just for the sake of making other people jealous or proud of us? Plato researched this idea of “being just” in great detail. For a soul to be so, he explained, it must be pious, honest etc. For example, picture the idea of two men- Mr. A and Mr. B. Mr. A will always do the just thing, and Mr. B will always do the unjust thing- he is very manipulative and knows how to deceive. Mr. B however, is more widely liked because he does not let people know he is doing the unjust thing, he is just that good at being manipulative. An example of this is the story of the Ring of Gadges-
Plato creates a seemingly invincible philosopher in The Republic. Socrates is able to refute all arguments presented before him with ease. The discussion on justice in Book I of The Republic is one such example. Socrates successfully refutes each different view of justice presented by Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus. Socrates has not given us a definitive definition of justice, nor has he refuted all views of justice, but as far as we are concerned in Book I, he is able to break down the arguments of his companions.
In Plato’s The Republic, he unravels the definition of justice. Plato believed that a ruler could not be wholly just unless one was in a society that was also just. Plato did not believe in democracy, because it was democracy that killed Socrates, his beloved teacher who was a just man and a philosopher. He believed in Guardians, or philosophers/rulers that ruled the state. One must examine what it means for a state to be just and what it means for a person to be just to truly understand the meaning of justice. According to Socrates, “…if we first tried to observe justice in some larger thing that possessed it, this would make it easier to observe in a single individual. We agreed that this larger thing is a city…(Plato 96).” It is evident, therefore, that the state and the ruler described in The Republic by Plato are clearly parallel to one another.
In Book 1 of the ‘Republic’, Socrates, in answer to the question ‘What is Justice?’ is presented with a real and dangerous alternative to what he thinks to be the truth about Justice. Julia Annas believes Thrasymachus thinks Justice and Injustice do have a real existence that is independent of human institutions; and that Thrasymachus makes a decided commitment to Injustice. She calls this view ‘Immoralism’: “the immoralist holds that there is an important question about justice, to be answered by showing that injustice is better.” This essay identifies this ‘Immoral’ view before understanding if and how Plato can respond to it. How does Plato attempt to refute Thrasymachus’s argument? Is he successful?
According to Plato justice is harmony (book 4, 434c) and justice is each part doing its own work and not interfering with one another. These two definitions of justice don’t do a good job of explaining what justice is in ful. Plato compares justice in a soul and justice in a city, the city of Kalipolis. Plato critiques what justice is, the parts in the soul and the parts in the city of Kalipolis. The soul is split into three parts by Plato, the appetitive, spirited element and the rational. The appetitive is the part are, in lames terms, our desires, our hunger, our thirst in some sorts. The rational part of our soul controls the appetites. The rational part is the part in the soul makes decisions...
Plato’s Republic is a dialogue set in Athens, which at the time of documentation was the center of the democratic world. Despite the city’s knowledge and construction of political structures ahead of its time, the main question addressed in the Republic is that of justice. What is justice, and why should we want to be just? Many competing thoughts are outlined within the Republic, notably that of a Sophist named Thrasymachus, who stated that justice is “nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (Plato, p. 15, 5c). Socrates, the main philosopher in this dialogue who claims that he “knows nothing” (Plato, p. 35, 354c) disagrees with Thrasymachus and spends the entire book trying to disprove the argument that the unjust person