Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Definitions of justice in the republic
Justice in the republic
Justice in the republic
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 …show more content…
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 …show more content…
Plato (2007) says, “Well, musicians will hardly use their skill to make their pupils unmusical, or riding master make their pupils bad horsemen then will just men use their justice to make others unjust?”(335c p.13). For example, a person who goes out and steals a someone’s car they would be considered unjust because they feel they need and want to have something of someone else’s. Another example is that, if a doctor who simply does not care about treating their patients for a medical issue that happens, they are called unjust as well, because they are purposely ignoring their proper job title as a doctor. Lastly, a hair stylist can act unjustly because if she or he refuses to take a customer that appropriately belong to them. People who are unjust do not realize their positions based on their roles in life, or they treat someone worse than they deserve to be treated. In comparison, an unjust society does not succeed in carrying out the meaning of what a society should be. It is evident that it is a better to be just and worse to be unjust. In book IV, of The Republic, Socrates proposes that each individual person would be happy by performing in the workforce that suits their role best. The idea of going back to specialization were performing a task best is based
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?
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.
Throughout “The Republic” there exist different characters that each holds a unique importance towards the development of certain philosophies, in this case, the meaning of “justice”. Thrasymachus is such a character, which could be considered a cynic by some; he plays an imperative role in the quest for the meaning of justice in the first book of “The Republic”. While Cephalus and his son Polemarchus are unsuccessful in providing Socrates with an adequate definition of justice, Thrasymachus presents himself annoyed with the dialogue between Socrates and Polemarchus, and furthermore demands an answer from Socrates in what he believes that justice is, instead of simply questioning the rhetoric of others. While Socrates in essence does not provide an answer, Thrasymachus confidently agrees to describe his position on the subject. In actuality, Thrasymachus not only provides his own definition of justice, but yet questions the actual value of being a just person in a society or culture by presenting an argument against the just life. Furthermore it is interesting what Thrasymachus reveals about himself in being inconsistent concerning his eagerness to speak out against justice and his argument about justice.
Socrates is speaking to Polemarchos, and during their conversation, Polemarchos proposes that justice is to simply help friends and to harm enemies. Socrates then brings up a great point, which is the way people choose friends and enemies, and how that process has flaws in it. He explains that people become friends with those that they believe are genuinely good, and become enemies with those who they believe to be evil. Therefore choosing friends or enemies is open to error since, people don’t know who is truly good or bad. From that point, they come to the conclusion that a better definition of justice would be, to benefit friends if they are good, and harm enemies if they are evil. Socrates asks the ultimate question, which is if it is alright to harm anyone at all. He proceeds to explain that harming another individual, be it a human or horse, makes them less just. If one causes another to be less just, whether the person is good or bad to begin with, that is unjust in itself.
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.
Throughout the book “The Republic”, Socrates discusses a number of topics, including immortality of the soul, reincarnation, and nature of the god’s. All in all, the topics that are argued are connected in many ways. More importantly than those topics, Socrates main argument is about a just society and a virtuous way of living. Many people who read “The Republic” consider the many points that Socrates has to offer and yet others do not. Some might agree with the ways a just society should be run but if people would think in the terms of twenty-first century, they would have some problems in agreeing with Socrates’s view of a just society. Every topic Socrates presents has a point and his main argument is about a just society and a virtuous way of living, whether it be from the soul, reincarnation, and other natures of god.
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.
The Republic of Plato begins in a similar fashion that many other Platonic dialogues begin, with that of a question. The conversation between Socrates and the aged Cephalus becomes a philosophical discussion of what advantages money has brought to Cephalus' life. Cephalus replies that money has allowed him "to tell the truth and pay one's debts" (331 b). Nevertheless, Socrates believes this does not portray an accurate description of what justice is. The rest of the first book is a discussion of the definition of justice, mainly that of Thrasymachus' definition. Socrates takes his normal role as an interrogator of peoples' views. The conversation focuses on justice but actually must be viewed in the context of how each individual can lead the best life possible.
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.
During the time period Plato wrote the Republic all Greek thinkers had come to agree upon one common idea, good men all possessed the cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. The previous statement seems basic enough to understand but during this time period many thinkers struggled to define the virtue of justice in a clear way. Throughout the text Socrates argues back and forth with his peers in order to establish an accurate definition for justice and to determine which is better, to be just or unjust? The original intent of Plato’s perfect Republic state was to create an environment where justice would be commonplace and all the people would flourish. Justice is at the core of all things good and those who live in accordance with justice will prosper.
The Republic of Plato explores the meaning of Justice from both an individual and societal point of view. It also looks into the incorporation of Justice into human society, in other words, how to create an ideal state of social order in a society. This is carried out through the various dialogues and arguments between Socrates and other individuals. During this process, Socrates gave a detailed analysis of the formation, structure and the organization of an ideal State, and through this, vindicate the intrinsic value of being a Just person in a society and the virtues that each individual must possess.
The Republic is a Socratic book written by Plato in 380 BC about the definition of justice and the directive and atmosphere of the just city and the just man. It is Plato’s best-known work and has proven to be one of the most knowledgeable and historic works of philosophy. In it, Socrates discusses the meaning of justice and examines whether or not the just man is happier than the unjust man. Socrates shows that living a virtuous life can yield greater pleasures than living an unvirtuous life. I find it very necessary to discuss the characteristics of a just person because in this day and age one is not applauded for remaining just in the face of temptations and threat, rather than today there is a huge emphasis on being rich and having lots of power. No one ever questions how someone became a success. I believe that values are inimitable and worth following despite what others think. In today’s society there is not enough focus on the importance of being just
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.
Week nine was a very short week in class. Due to outstanding circumstances we only had a chance to meet for one class. The class took place this past Friday. We started class with discussing Plato in hopes to end our ongoing discussion regarding Plato, and Plato on Virtue. In class we all came to agreement that the ultimate virtue to Plato was justice. Referring back to last week’s diary I quote myself, justice can be described as each part of the whole doing what it is supposed to do. According to Plato, justice is a quality of the soul. Also Plato believed that justice would cure all evil in a society, therefore making it also a social consciousness, and therefore good. This would be present in an ideal state or ideal society according
“For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them.” (More) The Republic is a text written by Plato through the eyes of his instructor, Socrates. It is what is most commonly referred to as a Socratic Dialogue. The Republic is perhaps one of the most famous of all of these texts due to its nature. Though the central idea of Plato’s Republic is still debated furiously, it is most commonly stated that this text is a dialogue primarily concerning the definition of justice. Throughout the process of defining the idea