There is an ethical theory that we covered this quarter that I strongly agree with which is the theory of justice. There is a specific thinker that surprised me at and made me think about moral issues in a new way. That thinker was Socrates who surprised me and made me think about moral issues in a new way. I feel that socrates is someone who challenged what you thought or believed about ethics before taking this class. Those dialog investigates two vital inquiries. Those 1st inquiry may be “what will be justice?” socrates addresses this address both As far as political groups and As far as those unique man alternately souk. He does this to address those second Furthermore driving inquiry of the dialogue: “is those simply persnickety happier …show more content…
Let me give you another example I came up with. Let 's say that your friend loaned you a brownie. You find out later that he has diabetes and wants the brownie back. You should keep it for your friends own safety or what if the friend wanted it to put poison in it and kill someone else. You would be keeping the other person from harm from the poison. So this could prevent self harm or harm of others. Another response Socrates gives is that justice allows a ruler to rule well and be at peace with himself and others while injustice produces hatred, factions, and strife. Let me give you another example that I came up with. Let’s say that King is peaceful, respectful and kind to is servants and people. The people and his servants with respect and like him more because of that but if he is unjust and filled with hatred and wanting to fight with angry then there would be chaos from the people and protest for not liking the king or ruler. This can also relate to Obama and Trump. Obama is a peaceful and respected and kind were as Trump is filled with hatred and anger. I real life situation happened where my friend told me to loan his car keys I said ok and later in the night he had a bit to drink and was drunk and asked for them back and said no and started talking about how he was drunk and tried to get him to sober up and drove him
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.
What is justice? In Plato’s, The Republic this is the main point and the whole novel is centered around this question. We see in this novel that Socrates talks about what is justice with multiple characters.In the first part of Book 1 of The Republic, Socrates questions conventional morality and attempts to define justice as a way for the just man to harm the unjust man (335d) ; however, Thrasymachus fully rejects this claim, and remarks that man will only do what is in his best interest, since human nature is, and should be ruled by self-interest, and he furthers this argument by implying that morality, and thus justice, is not what Socrates had suggested, but rather that it is simply a code of behavior exacted on man by his ruler. Thrasymachus begins his argument by giving his definition of justice. He says that justice, or right is simply what is in the best interest of the stronger (338c). When questioned by Socrates on this point, he explains that each type of government (the stronger party) enacts types of justice that are in its own best interest, and expect
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
Plato's Book I of The Republics presents three fundamental views on justice which are exemplified in Thucydides' On Justice, Power and Human Nature. Justice is illustrated as speaking the paying one's debts, helping one's friends and harming one's enemies, and the advantage of the stronger.
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.
This paper highlights a few fallacies that surround Socrates’ ideas about acting against unjust government.
that it is because of the gods that things are as they seem to be. "Do you
...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.
Plato’s Republic, although officially divided into ten books, can be separated into two very distinct sections. The first section, roughly spanning Books I through IV, contains a rather tangible investigation of justice in practice. Namely, the section considers what acts or occurrences are just, either in a city or in a man. The second section, beginning around Book V and continuing through the end of the dialogue, deals with the much more abstract issue of justice in a soul. The backbone of this section is the Allegory of the Cave, and the establishment of the philosopher. Within these discussions, a new concept of justice is revealed which proves to be the most profound in the dialogue, and comes closest to answering the question of Socrates’ success in convincing Glaucon and Adeimantus that it pays to be just.
Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.
When looking at the ISIS attack on Paris, ISIS believed they were being just when they attacked Paris on November 13th. ISIS justifies the attack saying it was a retaliation to France’s airstrikes on ISIS target in Syria and Iraq. To some people this is a form of justice, but to the philosopher Socrates it is not. Socrates was a classical Greek (Athenian) philosopher credited as one of the founders of Western philosophy. Socrates is often called the secular Jesus, due to the fact both had similar backgrounds and views on life; this paper will focus on Socrates views on justice. Socrates believed that it is a far better to suffer injustice than to be its cause. To Socrates suffering injustice can inflict only superficial injuries on you: it can't hurt your character. But doing an injustice makes you a worse person and this is real harm. If Socrates was alive he would say that ISIS committed an injustice when they attacked Paris back. Socrates would say that this will not bring ISIS happiness from attacking Paris back. Socrates would call ISIS attack on Paris a positive justice, which means others get what they deserve. ISIS felt they were paying France back for the
Whether Socrates is portrayed correctly or not, he certainly was a great man. His contribution to western thought cannot be denied. For even if his teachings were different from what they are known to be at present, his influence on Plato is immense. And so, it is no small matter to describe the tragic passing of such a man as Socrates was and remains for philosophy today. Yet in all the indignation which is expected to arise at the death of Socrates, the panache with which he departs is captured excellently in Plato's “Apology.” Specifically, at the end of the "Apology," Socrates makes a very important statement that has had great impact on philosophy ever since its original proclamation. The Stoics in particular have taken this to be the cornerstone of their ideology. The statement made is that "you must regard one thing at least as certain—that no harm can come to a good man either in his life or after his death,” (Plato 100). The following examination focuses therefore on a brief explanation of the circumstances which lead to this statement being made by Socrates, as well as a closer look at why he thinks this to be the case. It is assumed that this statement is true, and validation for that assumption is to be sought as well.
Two theories of justice discussed between Socrates and Polemarchus are: justice can be defined as giving each man his proper due and human virtue is justice. In the text, Socrates rejects both of these arguments. In my response, I will analyze each definition, explain Socrates position on each theory, and offer my opinion on each theory and Socrates viewpoint of said theories.
When Socrates was brought to trial for the corruption of the city’s youth he knew he had done nothing wrong. He had lived his life as it should be lead, and did what he ne...