Throughout ancient Greece history, there has been multiple lawgivers that shaped Greece's culture and social dynamics. Two of those main and well-known lawgivers of that time are Lycurgus and Solon. While Lycurgus reform shaped Spartan society and Solon's shaped Athens, their laws were created for the greater good of their cities. Both lawgivers have a different approach as to how they could help their cities and not favor just one side of the social hierarchy and not the other. They seem to have a different definition of justice and equality. In their reform, Solon was more of a neutralist while Lycurgus was trying to achieve equality. While both addressed the inequality that loomed over their cities, their reform and tactics were completely different from each other but one thing for sure, it changed Athens and Sparta drastically during that period of time.
First and foremost, Lycurgus' and Solon's notion of justice and equality do not share the same ideas. They both are fair in their reforms but Lycurgus believed more in equality than did Solon. In his reform, he destroyed greediness for money and luxury. Everyone was equal under the law. According to his reform, no one was below or above the law. Lycurgus did not favor the rich nor the poor. He did not believe in such system. In his reforms, everything was split equally between the citizens. No one had too much or too little. Those who thought that they were superior and could not follow the law, even the King, faced equal penalty. Lycurgus had a 'justice and equality for all' propaganda.
Solon's notion of justice and equality is blurry, on the other hand. He has a neutralist approach in his reforms. He does not favor the rich nor the poor, but unlike Lycurgus, his reforms...
... middle of paper ...
...ready has a shortage of true Spartan by blood, killing them will only decrease that number. While this may be seen as a weakness, it can also be a strength to the Spartan Society. While he is killing the weak, Lycurgus at the same time is breeding a better, finer, healthier, stronger and powerful population of Spartans.
As shown above, Greek had two great lawgivers that attempted to create the best laws for their cities. Lycurgus laws portrayed him as a man who wanted harmony within Sparta. His reforms' goals was to create the best out of Sparta and eliminate the disease of greed, power and luxury. Solon laws depicted him as a neutralist. He realizes that in politics, he can never fully satisfy everyone but he tries his best to offer both side what he sees fit. In the end, both reforms greatly affects the Greek cities during that time and provided relief for many.
In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.
The governments of these two city-states were not alike in many ways. “It is true that our government is called a democracy, because its administration is in the hands, not of the few, but of the many,” (Document 3). Athens’ government was what we would consider today a direct democracy. This means that their government was run by the people, or in other words “the many”, rather than a couple government officials, or “the few”. Although Athens was running their city as a government by the people, Sparta had a different form of government. “it is made up of oligarchy, monarchy, and democracy,
In the end, both Lycurgus and Solon sought to reform the laws in their powerful country in order to improve its function. While Lycurgus made reforms that can be considered equal since no one was treated better than the other, Solon was more of a neutralist that tried to cover “both sides, allowing neither unjust dominance.” But through of all this, both men left their country to avoid political unrest and people telling them to change the laws that they made.
At first glance, the picture of justice found in the Oresteia appears very different from that found in Heraclitus. And indeed, at the surface level there are a number of things which are distinctly un-Heraclitean. However, I believe that a close reading reveals more similarities than differences; and that there is a deep undercurrent of the Heraclitean world view running throughout the trilogy. In order to demonstrate this, I will first describe those ways in which the views of justice in Aeschylus' Oresteia and in Heraclitus appear dissimilar. Then I will examine how these dissimilarities are problematized by other information in the Oresteia; information which expresses views of justice very akin to Heraclitus. Of course, how similar or dissimilar they are will depend not only on one's reading of the Oresteia, but also on how one interprets Heraclitus. Therefore, when I identify a way in which justice in the Oresteia seems different from that in Heraclitus, I will also identify the interpretation of Heraclitus with which I am contrasting it. Defending my interpretation of Heraclitean justice as such is beyond the scope of this essay. However I will always refer to the particular fragments on which I am basing my interpretation, and I think that the views I will attribute to him are fairly non-controversial. It will be my contention that, after a thorough examination of both the apparent discrepancies and the similarities, the nature of justice portrayed in the Oresteia will appear more deeply Heraclitean than otherwise. I will not argue, however, that there are therefore no differences at all between Aeschylus and Heraclitus on the issue of justice. Clearly there are some real ones and I will point out any differences which I feel remain despite the many deep similarities.
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.
Athens and Sparta are both infamous Greek city states. Both could not be more different, yet similar in the way they governed their own city state. Another, main difference was the women’s rights and roles in the system. Athenian and Spartan women both were considered to be second to their male counterparts. Spartan women had more rights than Athenian women. Through, research realizing that the Spartan women were slightly greater role than Athenian women.
Plato the notion of justice is an individual who fulfilled his or her proper role in the society and who always knew and remembered to give back to society what is due by them. Plato believes that the moral and fair man in society will triumph over the tyrant by doing what is right and just for everyone. In the opposite hand in Thrasymachus’ mind notion of justice is the existence of the rightest (Posner,
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.
The notion of equality has been around for centuries. The Declaration of Independence even states, “all men are created equal”. However, a closer look into the various forms of government reveals that even though men may be created equal, in society, there is no such thing as equality. Both Plato and Tocqueville came to this realization, although in different ways. They both knew that individuals who are a part of the governing class must be educated in one way or another. However, they disagreed on whom exactly that ruling class should be. Plato believed that the ruling class should be made of a number of specially trained individuals, whose sole purpose was to rule; these individuals were referred to as the guardians. Tocqueville highlighted
Homer's two central heroes, Odysseus and Achilles, are in many ways differing manifestations of the same themes. While Achilles' character is almost utterly consistent in his rage, pride, and near divinity, Odysseus' character is difficult to pin down to a single moral; though perhaps more human than Achilles, he remains more difficult to understand. Nevertheless, both heroes are defined not by their appearances, nor by the impressions they leave upon the minds of those around them, nor even so much by the words they speak, but almost entirely by their actions. Action is what drives the plot of both the Iliad and the Odyssey, and action is what holds the characters together. In this respect, the theme of humanity is revealed in both Odysseus and Achilles: man is a combination of his will, his actions, and his relationship to the divine. This blend allows Homer to divulge all that is human in his characters, and all that is a vehicle for the idyllic aspects of ancient Greek society. Accordingly, the apparent inconsistencies in the characterization of Odysseus can be accounted for by his spiritual distance from the god-like Achilles; Achilles is more coherent because he is the son of a god. This is not to say that Achilles is not at times petty or unimaginative, but that his standards of action are merely more continuous through time. Nevertheless, both of Homer's heroes embody important and admirable facets of ancient Greek culture, though they fracture in the ways they are represented.
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.
The main architect of Athenian law was Solon. It is unknown when Solon was born. He died in 559 BC. (Plutarch). Solon allowed everyone to participate in court (Stockton 19). He created a code of laws based on justice, balance, and good order (Muller). Solon abolished the practice of debt bondage (Muller). Solon created the Council of 400 (Boule), and a court called the Heliaia. (Muller) Solon divided Athenians into classes in accordance with their income (Plutarch). The lowest class, the thetes, was ineligible for election to office (Plutarch). However, they could still come into the assembly and act as jurors (Plutarch). The other classes, from lowest to highest, were zeugits, hippies, and pentakosiomedimnoi (Muller).
Thrasymachus’s main argument is that, “Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger” (338c). In other words, Thrasymachus believes justice is advantageous to the stronger because those who behave justly are disadvantaged, and the strong who behave unjustly are advantaged. In his sense injustice is more profitable than justice because it allows people to enjoy benefits they would not obtain if they were to act just.
Thrasymachus defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. “I say justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (338c). Thrasymachus explains how rulers are the most powerful people in the city, who make the laws, which are just therefore making the rulers the stronger. He explains that rulers make laws that will benefit themselves; whether this means they make laws that are just depends on the type of ruler. “democracy makes democratic ones, tyranny tyrannical ones…” (338 10e), he is saying that if one is democratic their laws will be fair and just but if not they will make unfair rules and therefore be unjust. Thrasymachus explains that the reason he thinks that justice is the advantage for the stronger is because the people who rule cities have more power than everyone else and therefore determine what the rules are and what is just.
In the end, justice does not pay for any level of person in an ideal city. Plato must prove early on that justice is inherently good, and just actions are inherently good. The first point is dismissed for the sake of argument, and the second is uncertain due to the questions the myth of Gyges surfaces. The prime example of doing what is just is a citizen’s performance of his work within the city, thus making it just for the philosophers to rule. Despite ruling being a just action, ruling is an intrinsic evil, and thus does not pay the philosophers. This is more clearly defined looking at the producer’s work in the city. In the essential case of performing one’s job, justice does not pay the