Book one of Plato's Republic examines the concept of democracy and justice. Thrasymachus, the Sophist declares that justice is the advantage of the stronger, whereas Socrates argues that justice is wisdom, something good and desirable. According to this in Athenian times, a democracy could not survive with out a system of justice in place. This still holds true in the contemporary Western world.
Throughout the dialogue of book one, Socrates, Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus are trying to reach a definition of justice. Cephalus defines justice as "speaking the truth and paying whatever debts one has incurred" From this, justice is nothing more then being honest and living up to your legal obligation. Socrates compares this with returning a weapon to a lunatic in some sense, you owe him his weapon because it belongs to him legally, but if you do not return it to him, it is an unjust act. Returning it would endanger lives of others; so justice cannot be living up to your legal obligation. Polemarchus give his definition of justice to "treat friends well and enemies badly." Socrates argues this by stating, "people often make mistakes about this, believing many people to be good and useful when they aren't and making the opposite mistake about enemies." pointing out that judgment concerning friends is fallible and could end up harming the good and hurting the bad. Thrasymachus defines justice as "nothing other than the advantage of the stronger ....A just man gets less that an unjust one." This shows how justice does not benefit people. Socrates opposes this, stating that justice is worthwhile. Thrasymachus and Socrates agree that "justice is virtue and wisdom and that injustice is vice and ignorance." In conclusion,...
... middle of paper ...
...laws are passed to protect us based on wisdom and moral rightness.
The concept of democracy and justice are dependent upon each other. Without a system of justice in place, democracy would not survive. Socrates understanding of justice is how it is perceived today in the contemporary Western world. However, in the Athenian time, justice was controlled by the opinion of the masses and decisions were not necessarily based on wisdom. In both cases, democracy would not survive without a form of justice in place, be it fair or unfair. With a form of justice, a democracy would fail and erupt into anarchy.
Works Cited
Morgan, Michael. "Plato, Republic," Classics of Moral and Political Theory.
Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2001.
The Encyclopedia Americana International Edition, Volume 8
Danbury, Connecticut: Grolier Incorporated, 1991.
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.
One important contribution of Ancient Greek to the Western Culture is Democracy. The very term itself is of Greek derivation, meaning "People’s Rule". Unlike modern states which call themselves "Democratic". For example, Pericles Funeral Oration gave the greatest contribution to our today’s society. In .(Doc. 2) Pericles stated "Our plan of government favors the many instead of the few". Because of this quote it has contributed the society tremendously due to the fact that the democratic society is a direct democracy. Yet in a way, people have the power to overthrow other powerful representatives; Pericles Funeral Oration, gave us the idea of keeping the civilization as a democracy rather than Oligarchy, Monarchy, and many more. Moreover, Solon an Athenian tyrant discussed his thought about democracy. In .(doc. 4) Solon stated, "I drew up laws for bad and good alike, and set straight justice over each". Solon reveals that he has created laws for the good of others. He wanted every individual having the ...
Kephalos defines justice as returning what one has received (Ten Essays, Leo Strauss, page 169). On the other hand, Kaphalos’ son, Polemarchus, states that justice is found in harming one’s enemies and helping ones’ friends (Republic, 332D). The final opinion in the discussion is given by Thrasymachus as he says: “justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger” (Republic, 338C). However, the lack of knowledge to apply their definitions in reality creates a problem for Socrates. For example, Polemarchos’ view on justice requires a person to be able to distinguish between a friend and an enemy (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Socrates then refutes their definitions of justice and states that it is an advantage to be just and a disadvantage to be unjust. According to Socrates’ philosophy, “a just man will harm no man” and the application of justice becomes an art conjoined with philosophy, the medicine of the soul (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Therefore, the use of philosophy in ruling a city is necessary and the end goal of justice cannot be achieved unless the philosophers
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
The debate between Thrasymachus and Socrates begins when Thrasymachus gives his definition of justice in a very self-interested form. Thrasymachus believes that justice is only present to benefit the ruler, or the one in charge – and for that matter any one in charge can change the meaning of justice to accommodate their needs (343c). Thrasymachus provides a very complex example supporting his claim. He states that the man that is willing to cheat and be unjust to achieve success will be by far the best, and be better than the just man.
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.
Cephalus is the first to give a definition of justice which is, living up to your legal obligations and being honest. At first I thought this definition was somewhat accurate because if everyone did their legal obligations everything would be fine. Socrates refutes this definition by using the example of a madman. Basically, what happens if you would owe a madman a weapon, but him having it is unjust and causes others harm. At this point it would almost be better to be dishonest. I found myself switching my opinion on this definition after Socrates gave this example.
Plato states that as the just city (i.e. an aristocratic society) develops, it will inadvertently fall into depravity, because despite the excellent constitutions of its wise leaders, they are still fallible human beings. He outlines four distinct forms of government—of which he considers to be depraved—that the just city will transform into, with each one being worse than its predecessors. The four systems, which are ordered by their appearances in the line of succession, are: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and finally tyranny. The focus of this essay will be on Plato’s criticisms of democracy. Since democracy is recognized and practiced by most of modern western societies, it is especially relevant and important to examine whether this model
In Plato’s Republic Thrasymachus is arguing with Socrates about “what is justice?” Thrasymachus argues that might makes right. He believes that justice is made only by those in power, to serve those in power. The morality of the “lesser” people is a reflection of what the powerful people have set as the laws to follow. In that sense, might makes right. The people with the most power set the rules, and the citizens follow them, making it right. He also believes that the God’s do not care about humans because they do not enforce justices. Socrates does not follow the “might makes right” belief. Socrates argues that there are times that the people in charge make rules that do not benefit them. Then Thrasymachus says a “true ruler” would not
...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.
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.
Thrasymachus has just stated, "Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger", and is now, at the request of Socrates, clarifying his statement.
Justice is generally regarded as an important virtue. It is seen as the hallmark of a truly free and fair society, as well as one with a good sense of morality. The average person might see justice as a state where crime is not prevalent, and where individuals are fair and understanding towards one another. However, in order to reach a working definition for justice, one must consider its value and understand the components that make up a greater virtue. Throughout The Apology and Republic, Plato uses Socrates as a mouthpiece, attempting to explore find the true meaning of justice. Throughout The Apology, Socrates dispels commonly held views on the nature of justice and discusses how individuals
Socrates questions Thrasymachus on why he adds the detail of the stronger to his definition of justice. Socrates than asks, if it is just for everyone to follow the laws that the ruler has made, if the ruler has made unjust laws. His argument is that people, even rulers make mistakes. This meaning that if a ruler makes mistakes on the law does that still make it just. It is a very conflicting argument to think about, if the rules are not just then why should they be followed but the rules were also put in place by someone who is supposed to know the difference between just and unjust and choose correctly. This relates to what Socrates says during his trial portrayed in the Apology. Socrates claims
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil. This is where Plato’s argument that justice is in one’s self-interest is disturbed. This paper will discuss the idea that justice is not in one’s self-interest, and thus does not pay.