Piety and justice
Plato seems to believe that matters to do with piety and justice are far beyond the understanding of young people, that it takes age and years for anyone to come to a proper understanding of the two. This argument derives from his conversation with Euthyphro when the two are talking about an ongoing case against Socrates; a case that neither of them believes is justified. After Euthyphro asks Socrates who the accuser is, Socrates says that his indicter is Meletus who is a young man seeking to advance his political career (Reeve, 2012).
In describing this young man in relation to wisdom and knowledge in matters of religion and justice, Socrates uses the following sarcastic statement as revealed by Reeve (2012):
It is no small
…show more content…
This is because it beats common sense why a man would forego his love and affections towards his own father for the sake of a laborer and still begs the question whether Euthyphro’s adherence to religion should not have steered him to fairness in matters of justice considering the fact that the laborer had already committed murder (Reeve, 2012).
Plato seems to suggest that piety and justice are both hefty matters and that there seems to be a tug of war between the two- a fight for superiority where practitioners in each seek to prove the supremacy of what they practice.
The following statement as retrieved from Reeve (2012) can explain this:
Well then, my gifted friend, I had best become your pupil. Before the action with Meletus begins I will challenge him on these very grounds. I will say that even in former times I was much concerned to learn about religious matters, but that now, in view of his claiming that I am guilty of loose speech and innovation in these things, I have become your pupil. (p.
…show more content…
Perhaps you cannot say offhand, but I suggest you consider whether it would not be the just and unjust, beautiful and ugly, good and evil. Are not these the things, when we disagree about them and cannot reach a satisfactory decision, concerning which we on occasion become enemies--you, and I, and all other men? (p. 95)
Tied also to the former assertion by Socrates is the suggestion that there is a flaw in the justice system of the gods culminating in a flawed system exhibited by the men who follow them piously. Both the gods and men often seek not to accept when they are wrong but rather seek to justify what they want to be true by providing arguments and counter arguments to satisfy and silence the opposition just as is the case with Euthyphro and the case with his father.
Both of these notions by Plato make sense because it is now clear that the pious man Euthyphro seems to have picked a fight with his father not just, because he holds responsible for the laborers death but because his religious inclination causes him to hold an opinion different to everyone else’s (Reeve, 2012). Just like the gods he believes in have issues when it comes to matters of just and holy things, he seems to bear the same when dealing with his fellow
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.
In what is noted as one of Plato first accounts, we become acquainted with a very intriguing man known as Socrates; a man, whose ambition to seek knowledge, inevitably leaves a significant impact on humanity. Most of all, it is methodologies of attaining this knowledge that makes him so mesmerizing. This methodology is referred to as Socratic irony, in literature. In any case, I will introduce the argument that Plato's Euthyphro is extremely indicative of this type of methodology, for the reason being that: Socrates's portrays a sense of intellectual humility.
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.
Euthyphro in The Last Days of Socrates is based greatly around Socrates’ examining the human mind and digging for the answers to rather obvious questions. A specific instance of rhetoric within this section of the book is when Socrates is talking to Euthyphro and says, “And perhaps, Euthyphro, when asked what the holy is, you don’t want to point out the essence for me, but to tell me of some attribute which attaches to it, saying that holiness has the attribute of being approved by all the gods; what it is, you’ve not said yet” (Eut. 22.11a). In this particular section of Euthyphro, Socrates is examining Euthyphro to figure out what is holy and unholy, what is just and unjust. Euthyphro is incapable of answering Socrates questions because he cannot explain in detail what he is thinking. This specific instance of rhetoric is used to Socrates’ advantage because he shows that he is aware of w...
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.
This leads to Socrates point that considering that the gods have different opinions as to what things are just and good that means they must approve of different things. Furthermore, as indicated by Euthyphro's definition of piety, those things would be viewed as both holy and unholy, since they are approved by a few of the gods and objected by different gods. Nonetheless, in Euthyphro's eyes he believes that most likely every one of the gods would concede on the fact that a man who murders somebody unjustifiably ought to have consequences. Socrates makes the point that the question doesn't emerge with respect to whether someone who has done something wrong ought to be punished, but as to whether the individual has in actuality acted
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
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 the Euthyphro, Socrates is making his way into the courthouse; however, prior to entering he had a discussion with a young priest of Athens, Euthyphro. This dialogue relates religion and justice to one another and the manner in which they correlate. Euthyphro feels as though justice necessitates religion and Socrates feels the opposite, religion necessitates justice. Euthyphro claims that religion is everything, justice, habits, traditions, customs, cultures, etc. all are derived from religion. Socrates went on to question what exactly would be the definition of pious. Euthyphro offered Socrates three definitions of pious and in all three Socrates was able to successfully find fault...
...purpose is “to unmask the hypocrisy and show how the meaning of Justice is being perverted” . He is not prepared to argue, leaving Socrates victorious. Here, Socrates’s method of argumentative questioning is insufficient and naïve against a stubborn, powerful and philosophically certain moral skeptic. This is confirmed by the change in investigative approach in the latter books. Thus the ‘earlier’ Plato cannot adequately respond to Thrasymachus’s immoralist view of Justice.
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."
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.
Keeping true to Socratic/Platonic methodology, questions are raised in the Euthyphro by conversation; specifically “What is holiness?” After some useless deliberation, the discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro ends inconclusively. Euthyphro varying definitions of piety include “What I do is pious to the gods,” and, “What is pleasing to the gods is pious.” Socrates proves these definitions to be insufficient, which leads us to the Apology.
The story that is found in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro proposes a dilemma that has since been a very controversial subject. When Socrates encounters Euthyphyo, he is on his way to trail to face charges against his own father. His father had been accused o...
For Plato’s thesis – justice pays – to be validated, he has to prove two things, the first being that justice is inherently good. In