Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Plato's concept of Justice
What is the nature of justice by plato
Plato's concept of Justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Plato's concept of Justice
The myth of the Ring of Gyges has transcended hundred of years, thusly making it a ‘tale as old as time’. Modern adaptations of this myth include JRR Tolkien’s, “Lord of the Ring” series as an example. Through this legend and others, like the myth of metals, Plato is able to demonstrate what one ought to do if one is set owner of the infamous Ring of Gyges, ergo the argumentation of why one ought to act justly. If I had a magic ring such as the Ring of Gyges I would be inclined to act mischievously, but would wind up acting as though I did not have the ring. To fully understand my position, if I had a magic ring, can only be fully comprehended once the purpose of the ring, pertaining to morality is understood. I feel as though the Socrates of The Apology and of The Republic would answer in a consistent way. Namely, that regardless of possession of the ring or not, one should act justly. “Why act just”, is a theme through out the philosophical works of Plato, in The Republic, Plato aims to address the issue of how justice becomes a virtue in society. Please note that The Republic, in addition to The Apology are works of Plato, but the main character is Socrates, Plato’s teacher. Therefore, when referring to the two works, Plato and or Socrates can be named in reference. Furthermore, after addressing how one acts just, Plato is to ask why one ought to act just. He uses the myth of the Ring of Gyges to help explain this phenomenon of human behavior. Why having a discussion with his two brothers, Glaucon and Adeimantus, the myth of the Ring of Gyges is first brought up in conversation. Specifically found at the Stephanus pagination of 2.359a–2.360d, Glaucon, brother of Plato, first tells the legend in book II of The Republic. The ... ... middle of paper ... ...sense of arête, as described before. As a result, while seemingly tempting to act unjustly, if one is to live an examined life they will see that one will be the happiest and have the most eudemonia, or Greek word for happy and or balanced, if they act justly. This is regardless of whether or not set individual is wearing the Ring of Gyges. To reiterate, if I was in possession of the Ring of Gyges, while it would be tempted to act unjustly, I would ultimately act justly. By acting justly it promotes the idea of one’s soul (ration, spirit and desire) being in harmony. Set idea is illustrated by the metaphor of a city and the myth of the metals. This idea demonstrates the notion of “ justice is not what one sees but one feels” as stated by Plato. After consideration of Socrates in both The Republic and The Apology I think he would ultimately answer in a similar way.
...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.
Socrates asks the questions he does during his court case because he feels that it is his calling from the gods; questioning the world around him is his focus. However, this idea of following and obeying the gods contradicts Plato’s thoughts in The Republic. To Plato, the justice system in Greece was built upon the ability to not only willingly follow the gods, but also to act in complete reflection with the gods and their unchanging
The story of the Ring of Gyges (Plato, p. 38, 359d) illustrates a life in which one hides behind a magical ring that provides its wearer with invisibility, therefore providing this person with the ability to do whatever they please without repercussion (Plato, p. 38, 360a). In the story, Gyges did many immoral things and avoided punishment due to his invisibility (Plato, p. 38, 360b). This prompts us to question if we are just only for the fear of having injustice done unto us, which Thrasymachus believed to be true (Plato, p. 21, 334a). Socrates was not pleased by this notion, and provided an argument within the Republic to explain
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.
The character of Socrates in Plato’s Republic is a curious one. Socrates is rarely satisfied with widely or casually accepted statements, and is fearless in taking on enormous topics for debate. One such topic that Socrates tackles early and often in the Republic is that of justice and the just life. It takes little time for Socrates to begin an attempt at demonstrating to two of his friends, Glaucon and Adeimantus, that in fact it pays to be just. After much debate and even the creation of a fictional city, a resolution of some kind is reached. Socrates does succeed in convincing his opposition that it pays to be just, however he does not demonstrate said fact. The difference is subtle, but profound.
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
...ing so he also showed that there is such a thing a justice within a city as well as in an individual. Thus, Plato?s reply to the fool would be that indeed there is such a thing as justice. And justice is good because it benefits in this life as well as the next. Therefore, even though a man may wish to behave unjustly when he can, as with the myth of the ring of Gyges, behaving justly will have the most rewards.
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.
The Republic by Plato talks about justice and what it means to be a just person. When having a conversation with Glaucon about justice, the ring of Gyges is brought up to prove a theory about people and the social contracts that make up our society. The legend of the Ring of Gyges tells the story of a man who was a shepherd but when an earthquake revealed a body of a skeleton of a giant from the past he was giving an opportunity to change his status. He stole the ring and discovered that by twisting it in a certain way he could become invisible. The thief would then sneak in to the castle and convince the queen to help murder her husband, and the thief took the throne. With the common knowledge of the thief and the ring Glaucon poses a question about what a supposedly good and decent individual finding the ring would do with the power of invisibility. Socrates believes that a just person would not even put the ring on, directly contradicting Glaucon.
In the Introduction of Plato's Republic, a very important theme is depicted. It is the argument of whether it is beneficial for a person to lead a good and just existence. The greatly argued position that justice does not pay, is argued by three men Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. By incorporating all three men into a collective effort I believe I can give a more flattering depiction of injustice.
The first definition that we explore is that of Cephalus, an elder of the city who is also the father of Polemarchus. Cephalus believes that justice is “Speaking the truth, and giving back what one takes (331d). Although speaking the truth is always an act of righteousness, This definition is proven inconsistent when Socrates raises the argument involving the mad man and the gun. “Everyone would surely say that if a man takes weapons from a friend when the latter is of sound mind, and the friend demands them back when he is mad, one shouldn’t give back such things, and the man who gave them back would not be just(331c). The idea of Socrates is that although the man who is keeping the weapons from his friend is breaking a law, he is potentially saving other people from injury in keeping the weapons away from the...
Glaucon attempted to prove that injustice is preferable to justice. At first, Glacon agreed with Socrates that justice is a good thing, but implored on the nature of its goodness? He listed three types of “good”; that which is good for its own sake (such as playing games), that which is good is good in itself and has useful consequences (such as reading), and that which is painful but has good consequences (such as surgery). Socrates replied that justice "belongs in the fairest class, that which a man who is to be happy must love both for its own sake and for the results." (45d) Glaucon then reaffirmed Thrasymachus’s position that unjust people lead a better life than just people. He started that being just is simply a formality for maintaining a good reputation and for achieving one’s goals. He claimed that the only reason why a person would choose to be unjust rather than just due to the fear of punishment. This is supported by the story of the shepherd who became corrupted as a result of finding a ring which made him invisible. He took over the kingdom through murder and intrigue since he knew there could be no repercussions for his unjust actions. In addition, Adiamantus stated that unjust people did not need to fear divine punishment since appeals could be made to Gods’ egos via sacrifices. Finally, Glaucon gave an example of the extreme unjust person who has accumulated great wealth and power which he juxtaposed with an extreme moral man who is being punished unjustly for his crimes. Clearly, injustice is preferable to justice since it provides for a more fruitful life.
In the Plato’s Republic mainly discuses the idea of what justice is. The answer to this question has a variety of answers according to the Republic, which makes it very interesting. Throughout this book, you will be driven in many directions of what justice is. Some may the answer is to primarily is doing the right thing. The main issue comes from about is whether to try and be just at the expense of staying poor, or lie, or even use the very unjust means to get what one wants in life. The main point of the book is a man who tries to be very just, may spend life wandering in the streets in search for money, while the man who lies to get their way, will be rich. This essay looks at the Thrasymachus’s concept of and the Socrates’s concept of justice. The essay also looks at the author thinks that the unjust man will be happier that the just man. It explores the reasons why the concepts are right or wrong.
However, the argument with Thrasymachus raise some questions about justice and injustice and the advantages they offer to men. In order to attempt an answer, it is important to understand what is justice according to Plato himself and what other definitions it could have. Then it is possible to demonstrate that he succeed in a certain extent to refute Thrasymachus and Glaucon's opinion.
After Plato debates and dismisses that justice is the interest of the stronger and that the unjust life has an advantage to the just life, Plato, lacking a firm answer on justice seems to say that justice is a balance of the soul. As Plato is debating this question Thrasymachus joins in and presents the first possible definition of justice as the interest of the stronger, that might is right. Socrates enters the conversation and attempts to define justice. Socrates says that subjects obey their rulers and these rulers are not perfect, they sometimes make mistakes. If justi...