Are Just People More Happy Than Unjust People Analysis

1285 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: A critique on Plato's Republic

Are Just People More Happy Than Unjust People? Socrates’ attempt to prove Thrasymachus wrong about justice and happiness occurs in Plato’s Republic book 1, 352d-354a. Socrates proves his claim that just people are happy because their souls perform its appropriate virtuous function of being just and unjust people are not happy because they deprive their souls of its necessary function, which is to be just. Socrates’ claim is that those who are just are happy and those who are unjust miserable or wretched. Socrates begins by elaborating on virtues and vices of things. He does this by asking Thrasymachus if a horse has a specific function, to which Thrasymachus replies that he does believe so (352e). According to Socrates, the function of …show more content…

Eyes and ears are not virtuous, at least in the manner that we use the word today. If we acknowledge that this loose usage of those words may just be an artifact of translation, then this portion of his argument is valid and sound, otherwise …show more content…

An aspect of his logic that may be less sound is the way that he conflates man and soul, without giving any explanation or evidence to prove his case. It seems like a jump in logic to assume that man and soul are one in the same. Moving on from that, he uses the concept of “living well” as a virtue of the soul, which is also another unsubstantiated claim. Furthermore, the very concept seems much too ambiguous to base to be the argument on which he bases his following claim. His very premise of the second half of his argument seems unsound: the functions of the soul. He does not provide any evidence to support his claim that the soul (1) exists, (2) has a function, or (3) much less that said soul’s function may be to take care of things, deliberate, rule and to live. It seems that at this point, Thrasymachus himself seems to have noticed the lack of sustenance to Socrates claim for hereon forth. Another problem with the soundness of his argument seems to hinge on a jump in logic. According to his argument, the virtuous function of a soul is to be just. Nobody up to this point in the text have even attempted to give a definition for justice, so how can Socrates conflate taking care of things, thinking things thoroughly, rule and live as justice without a definition of that with which he is conflating those

Show More
Related

  • Analysis of Thrasymachus' Argument in The Republic

    651 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thrasymachus starts off by stating his conclusion: justice is the advantage of the stronger. He then gives Socrates two premises that he uses to arrive at his conclusion first that rulers of cities are stronger than their subjects and second that rulers declare what is just and unjust by making laws for their subjects to follow. Since justice is declared by the stronger then it must surely be a tool for the stronger.

    Read More

  • Argument in the Apology

    881 Words  | 2 Pages

    The first approach that Socrates uses to prove his innocence’s is he uses a practical comparison between horses and all living and artifical things “Take the case of horses; do you believe that those who improve them make up the whole of the mankind and that there is only one person who has a bad effect on them? Or is the truth just the opposite that the ability to improve them belongs to one person or to very few persons, who are horse-trainers, whereas most people, if they have to do with horses and make use of them, do them harm.” 2

    Read More

  • Nature Vs Nurture In Plato's The Republic

    1435 Words  | 3 Pages

    It is his companions, Glaucon and Adeimantus, who revitalized Thrasymachus’ claim of justice. Thrasymachus believes that justice is what the people who are in charge say it is and from that point on it is Socrates’ goal to prove him wrong. Socrates believes that justice is desired for itself and works as a benefit. All four characters would agree that justice has a benefit. To accurately prove his point of justice, Socrates has to reference his own version of nature and nurture. He, Socrates, believes that justice is innately born in everyone. No one person is incapable of being just. Justice is tantamount to a skill or talent. Like any skill or talent, justice must be nurtured so that it is at its peak and mastered form. The city that Socrates has built is perfect in his eyes because every denizen has been gifted with a talent, then properly educated on how best to use their talent, and lastly able to apply their just morals in everyday

    Read More

  • Four Arguments For The World Of Life In Plato's Phaedo

    1217 Words  | 3 Pages

    The next argument is called “the affinity” it simply reiterates that the world of the forms is superior to the world of senses. This argument is intended to establish only the probability of the soul’s continued existence after the death of the body. The soul is more like the world of forms. The body is the mortal part of us, the part that passes away. Which makes him believe the soul is divine. If the soul is freed from the pleasures of the body, it’s most likely to participate in the world of forms.

    Read More

  • Plato Republic Democracy

    1270 Words  | 3 Pages

    Truth be told there is no real justice in Socrates? ?just city?. Servitude of those within his city is crucial to its function. His citizens are, in every aspect, slaves to the functionality of a city that is not truly their own. True justice can not be achieved through slavery and servitude, that which appears to be justice (and all for the sake of appearances) is all that is achieved. Within Socrates? city there is no room for identity, individuality, equality, or freedom, which are the foundations justice was built upon. These foundations are upheld within a proper democracy. In fact, the closest one can experience justice, on a political level, is through democracy.

    Read More

  • Justice In Plato's The Republic

    1072 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • The Argument Of Socrates In Plato's The Republic

    1137 Words  | 3 Pages

    First, I want to discuss some terms Socrates uses and how he defines them. Socrates defines the function of something as what only it can do or what it does better than anything else. For example, the function of a screwdriver would be to screw and/or unscrew. A screwdriver may now be the only thing that can screw or unscrew but it can better than anything else. Similarly, a blow dryer’s function is to dry hair, a person could dry their hair other ways, but a blow dryer dries hair better than anything else. Socrates

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus and Socrates

    771 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Socrates In The Apology

    769 Words  | 2 Pages

    “Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable, as I was just now saying, and as has been already acknowledged by us? (Dover p.49)” Socrates’ standard is that he refuses to see justice as an eye for an eye. He believes that logical arguments and persuasion should be the defense of the accused. Socrates believes that since he cannot convince the people who ruled against him that there is no other option then to pay the sentence that he was

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus Definition Of Justice Essay

    523 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • The Republic - Book 1 - Theme Of Justice

    2360 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Concept Of Justice In Plato's Republic

    1333 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Socrates Pursuit Of Knowledge In Plato's Republic

    873 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the beginning of the Republic, Socrates pursues knowledge in a similar way to his other dialogues; approaching the self-proclaimed masters to gain the knowledge. In doing so he asks them for their definition of certain topics then begins a conversation with the other, in an attempt to understand the definition fully. During Book 1, Socrates is pursuing the definition of Justice and receives differing answers: “It gives benefit to friends and harm to enemies” (332d-e), “justice is useless when [other crafts] are in use, but useful when they are not […] It can only be useful for useless things” (333d), and lastly, the one he spends the most time discussing; “justice is really the good of another, what is advantageous for the stronger” (343c). As these definitions are presented, Socrates begins to ask questions, primarily where he sees holes in their argument, or where there exists ambiguity. In this sense, Socrates takes something that is presented, then breaks down the argument in such a way that individuals concede to his persistence. The goal of Socrates,

    Read More

  • Plato's Views on Happiness

    928 Words  | 2 Pages

    To be just or unjust. To be happy or unhappy? Men fall into these two categories. Why does a man act according to these 2 extremes? Is it because they fear punishment? Are they quivering in fear of divine retribution? Or do men do just things because it is good for them to do so? Is justice, good of its rewards and consequences? Or is it good for itself. What is justice? Are the people who are just, just as happy as the people who are unjust? Plato sheds light on these questions and says yes, I have the definition of justice and yes, just people are happy if not happier than unjust people. Plato show’s that justice is worthwhile in and of itself and that being a just person equates to being a happy person. In my opinion, Plato does a good job and is accurate when explaining what it is to be just and this definition is an adequate solution to repairing an unjust person or an unjust city or anything that has an unjust virtue and using the definition of what justice is accurately explains why just people are happier than unjust people.

    Read More

  • The Soul According to Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine

    1196 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...wever, the only aspect I agree with is the structure of the soul. I adamantly disagree that the soul had past lives and is just merely remembering things in this current lifetime. I recognize that the body does need a source to move it and that source must be energy. If the soul is immortal and energy, (by the laws of thermodynamics) cannot be destroyed, perhaps energy and soul are synonymous and there is no such thing as soul, but mere energy in our bodies. I also don’t believe that what a plant has, whatever it is, can be defined as a soul as Aristotle claims. In whomever or whatever a soul dwells, that entity must be aware of its existence, and I don’t think plants know it’s alive. I also agree with Augustine that the soul genuinely desires happiness and that happiness is only the truth. A soul wouldn’t desire that which is false, if happiness is a natural good thing as Plato holds, then of course the soul desires that which is good. And since that which is good is true, I must agree that our soul desires that true thing-or being.

    Read More

More about Are Just People More Happy Than Unjust People Analysis

Open Document