I think Socrates does not truly understand what justice is. The justice he explains is only his own justice but not everybody’s justice. His justice does not allow a city and individuals, especially the ruled class in the city to develop further. Socrates gives the idea that the premise of individuals getting justice and happiness is they live in a justice city. In a city, there are four virtues: moderation, courage, wisdom and justice. According to first three virtues, people are divided into three types: workers with moderation, guardians with courage and auxiliaries with wisdom. Justice is the most important virtue and represents the unanimity of three virtues (Plato 268-288). When Socrates goes back to individual’s justice, he further …show more content…
The first reason is Socrates’ justice is built on a class system for a country in which everybody is stuck at his or her own spot. This justice does not show the relationship with individuals’ happiness. As long as the ruler rules and workers work, the country is just. The justice of a city requires each individual to keep doing his or her own thing, so he or she will forever stay in one status. Any one class can not override the obligation and the occupation this class requires. So Socrates’s justice theory assumes that an individual is not a single one but a part of social order. An individual in Socrates’ theory does not seek for personal happiness but fulfill the responsibility which the society order …show more content…
The lowest one is built by brass and iron (242-243). Socrates gives this lie to rationalize the totalitarianism and consider it as a tale in education. It seems that he does not care how he gets to the result as long as he gets it. Nevertheless, the dividing system itself is unjust. Firstly, Socrates’s justice clearly divides the ruling class and the ruled class. This is against the law of equality that everybody is born to be equal, according to “The Social Contract”(Rousseau) and also later shown in American Constitution. Secondly, auxiliaries and guardians monopolize political rights of the city though the descendants of workers have the opportunity to be in an upper class. But if you are a worker, you are not qualified to attend any political
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.
Socrates defines justice in the individual as the three parts of the soul doing their job and only their job (433b). The parts of the soul are reason, appetite, and spirit (435c). Reason is the part that thinks and makes judgements. Appetite is the part that is impulsive and acts on bodily desires. Spirit is the part that is emotional, and acts on feelings, such as courage (...
He says justice is what is good for the stronger (Bloom 338c).he considers that when the superior are truly strong then justice is worthy. It is best when the weak follow the laws set by the strong to fulfill their benefits only. Else the laws would be followed to their detriment, and justice would be both good and bad for them (Bloom 339e). So, to the extent that they don't make mistakes, making them weaker, justice is the good for the strong (Bloom 341). On its own, such a sentence could imply that what is beneficial to the stronger is just for and therefore, beneficial to the weaker, and Socrates accordingly asks whether this understanding is accurate.
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
Socrates’ view on morality is that anyone can do wrong. It is said that injuring someone in return for injury to oneself is wrong. He follows this with the connection between morality and the city. You do badly without the cities authorization; you are doing wrong towards the city and the laws. He felt if you are behaving against peoples mind and in this way, behaving against the city. It is a way of destroying the cities laws and so you are hurting citizens by doing so. An example of this is the general understanding that you shouldn’t hurt your father. If you do so than you are disrespecting laws within your city. Of course you will get convicted for this, and it doesn’t change the idea that you acted against the city.
When a person’s back is against the wall and the stakes are the highest, how should they handle the pressure? When the lines between right and wrong become so blurred, how is one to know what is the ethical choice in the matter? Imagine being accused of first degree murder, a crime in which you did not commit. However, the evidence against you is stacked so high, it seems you do not have a chance. Your lawyer says he could have you acquitted, but in order to do so he must engage in some unethical courtroom tricks. So with your life on the line, what is the right thing to do? Do you keep the lawyer or should you stand by the truth?
Socrates evaluates four city constitutions that evolve from aristocracy: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. As a result that these four types of cities exist, four additional types of individuals who inhabit them also exist. Although these city constitutions evolve from aristocracy, Socrates deems aristocracy to be the most efficient, therefore the most just, of the constitutions because the individuals within it are ruled by the rational part of the soul.
Socrates was accused of being a sophist because he was "engaging in inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heavens, of making the weaker argument appear the stronger," and "teaching others these same things." (Apology, Plato, Philosophic Classics page 21) Socrates is also accused of denying the existence of the gods, and corrupting the youth. Socrates goes about trying to prove his innocence. The jury that Socrates was tried by was made up of 501 Athenian citizens of all classes of society. While he fails to convince the Athenian jury of his innocence, he does a wonderful job in this effort. I personally believe that Socrates is innocent, and that the Athenian jury made the wrong decision.
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
When Socrates posited the idea that the laws and citizens work together synergistically, was this not broken when Socrates was unjustly convicted of a crime? The logic of Socrates would hold that one should act in accordance with just laws, but when the legal system becomes unjust, one is not required to follow the laws. The only alternative to abiding the law is to expatriate or persuade the government, so one would think that Socrates would find the code of law not worth adhering to after it was proven unjust through his trial especially after dismissing the wisdom of public opinion. The tacit agreement of the citizen to the system of laws is also a point to be disputed. An individual’s inhabitance of an area does not suppose that he has extensive legal knowledge of his place of residence. For a legal code to be truly just, the citizens must be aware of all possible infractions and physically indicate their subscription to them. If a citizen were unknowingly to commit a crime, how could he be justly held accountable? Socrates should not be held accountable for his crime unless he consciously agreed to the laws and understood his action was illegal before it was
that it is because of the gods that things are as they seem to be. "Do you
Socrates then sums up his statements. Injustice is never more profitable than justice, no matter how you argue Thrasymachus. Although Socrates realizes he has refuted Thrasymachus, he also realizes his argument is incomplete. The most important issue -- what is the nature of justice -- has not been solved. Justice is an excellence of human character and a source of happiness. However, knowing these things is just a beginning. What is the just life? Therefore, Socrates concludes that more investigation is needed.
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.
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
1b. Socrates states that goods can come in 3 forms such as: intrinsic goods, which are harmless pleasures, intrinsic and instrumental good, such as health and knowledge, and finally he states the third being instrumental goods, which is health and exercise. Socrates believes Justice should fall into the second category with both intrinsic and instrumental goods. Glaucon states that the popular view of justice is that justice is there be not because it’s something good to do, but because people are scared that unjust things will be done to them.