Analysis of Socrates' Definition of Justice in 'The Republic'

Socratic Justice is defined as the argumentative reasoning that relies on fairness and justice and ultimately doing what is best for your country. In this paper I will explain how Socratic Justice plays a big role in The Trial and Death of Socrates. I will also go into detail about the differences between Machiavelli’s views of government as opposed to Socrates’s.

“What is justice?” This is a question that men have struggled with answering for centuries. Justice should be defined for the sake of all people, especially by rulers who attempt to make fair laws so that their society functions in an orderly fashion. In Book 1 of The Republic, Plato attempts to define exactly what justice is. To help determine this definition, he speaks through the philosopher protagonist of Socrates. Justice is first brought up in The Republic during Socrates’ trip to Piraeus. While traveling Socrates ends up gathering with his interlocutors and together, they talk about justice and how one would define it. Socrates debates with the men about the definition of justice and is presented with a definition of

Why do we even bother with justice? To an average person, I’d argue that the value of justice could rival or is even undermined by the value of a consistent Wi-Fi signal. This is no jab at modern consumerism, but instead an analogy to identify how commonly vague the definition of justice is to a common individual. However, to Plato and his Republic, the value of Justice both rivals and harmonies with all that’s important, and all that is “good”. Justice, according to Plato, represents both intrinsic and extrinsic good. In other words, the state of Justice is preferable just for the sake of Justice and for the harmony it can bring to the Republic. To arrive at this defining distinction, Socrates participates in

What is justice? According to Socrates, to be just is what every individual is conditioned to strive for. Those who act unjustly are guided by ignorance and only they themselves believe they are doing good. A core ideal of Socrates was that everyone should do good and avoid wrong. His views on law and justice are shaped around this ideal.

In Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus asserts that justice is the interest of the ruling part in a political community. This is proven wrong in many ways in Book II. Socrates disassembles this theory using undisputed definitions of wisdom and virtue. These definitions of wisdom and virtue are rendered by a ruler’s personal biases. A ruler has a natural internal motivation to gain undisputed expertise of their craft. A ruler of a political community does act through personal motivations, but by doing so inherently considers the interest of the entirety of the community, as the community’s level of justice will prove a ruler’s competency in their own craft.

The Republic, Written by Plato deals with the many definitions/opinions of what “justice” really means. Socrates truly examines what he thinks the true value behind the word actually is. However, he isn’t alone other characters such as Cephalus, Thrasymachus, and Polemarchus all have something to contribute to the conversation. Socrates is the man who checks the truth behind each one, while Plato shares his thoughts on what Socrates believes is true. Truth in all the arguments and what each person brings to the table help them figure out what justice means. Justice in the eye of Socrates is not a simple answer or definition but there are many different components that factor in the create the best possible city which is justice.

Human nature drives individuals to define the most perplexing concepts; however, understanding the true meaning refers to more than its denotation. The definition of justice proves to be a conflicting view point, dating back to Socrates’s attempted explanation in Plato’s The Republic. Within the first book, Socrates finds himself exposing the flaws behind three definitions of justice proposed by the traditionalists of Athens. Through Socrates’s ridicule of physical attributes equating to justice, he disproves these perceived virtues and conveys the necessity for a lack of physicality.

As mentioned in the lecture, Plato’s Republic makes you ponder as to what is the correct meaning of justice. Cephalus, a rich elder who is well-respected, describes justice with the Hesiodic conception: living up to your requirements and being truthful. Socrates denies the definition with the example of borrowing weapons from a friend, then he turns into a madman, requesting his weapons back. Everyone knows that the weapons should not be returned for the sake of people’s life. He declares that is not justice, that is, “telling the truth, and returning what you have been given.” Celaphus’s son, Polemarchus, brings a new description of justice: helping out friends and hurting our enemies, which Socrates dismisses it. He declares that our own

For years, philosophers have tried to define justice. In Plato’s The Republic, Plato discusses the equality of the sexes, abolition of family, rule by philosophers, life and while doing so, attempts to describe what justice is. In Book I, the search for the answer to what is just is set up through discussion done mostly by Socrates, Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus contributes to this conversation by establishing what he thinks justice means, especially in regards to government and law. Thrasymachus argues that justice is “the advantage of the stronger” (Plato 338c). Through discussion with Socrates, who opposes this view, Thrasymachus offers his definition and explanation of the argument. I believe that though Thrasymachus’s

Plato was an Ancient Greek philosopher who lived between 428-432 B.C. He wrote mainly in dialogues, to stay true to how Socrates communicated philosophy. Plato displayed what is considered Socrates’ philosophy throughout the dialogue The Apology. In The Republic, Socrates is mainly used as a mouthpiece to communicate Plato’s philosophy. Socrates follows a philosophy best explained as “I do not know”, whereas Plato tries to find the ultimate solution to philosophical problems. In this essay, I will argue how Socrates has the best philosophical approach compared to that of Plato.

This paper argues that Socrates makes a plausible case for justice. Socrates raised two main questions in the first two books of Plato’s Republic, what is justice? And why should we act justly? Thrasymachus and Glaucon both have different and more negative views of justice than Socrates. Throughout books one and two, Socrates, Glaucon and Thrasymachus go back and forth discussing the definition and application of justice in society. He starts his discussions with Glaucon and Thrasymachus by stating simply, “What is justice?”

The first point of what Socrates answers what isn’t justice is that justice isn’t equality. It is not after death of getting revenge that makes justice equal. Socrates uses the example of how when a person is on trial for murder, and how that person sentence is death. The end result will not be justice, because in the end both the criminal and already the innocent will be dead and no equality of justice would have been done at all. Another example is when a person is put to death when they owe taxes. There is no equal justice to killing someone who owes taxes because in the end result, the tax is still not paid off. So this leaves Justice is not paying amends. It is then moved to the question of when is justice is used. Justice is used when

Using his argument of a macrocosm reflecting a microcosm Plato was able to define the form of justice. Plato’s definition of justice can be put in a different manner. He believes that justice is a policy of non-interference. Each element of the whole, whether it is in the city or the individual, functions in its own aspect to benefit the whole, fulfilling its own purpose. Justice occurs when the elements of the whole are acting in accord with one another.

“Justice is the art that gives each man what is good for his soul”. This statement is implies that justice is goodness and doing what’s right. This also implies that being a good person and doing good actions will in turn benefit the people by improving their Lives. Justice is good because it sets a standard of goodness that people in society would have to uphold and follow. Therefore this would lead to an environment of positivity and goodness for individuals. The Mariam-Webster dictionary gives the world one definition that states “Justice is the maintenance and administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of confliction claims”. However According to book one of The Republic by Plato, Justice is conveyed as a very complex topic that cannot be defined by a single definition. The topic of justice is discussed and broken down by Socrates, who asks the question “what is justice?” , he seeks out a definition from the company around him and through different given definitions of Justice, Socrates proves that there is no one definition for justice because there are many contradictions and exceptions that have to be considered in certain situations. In this essay I will discuss how justice relates to goodness and how it can be “the art that gives each man what is good for his soul” by using the Socrates’ discussion on the various definitions of justice from book one in The Republic by Plato.

On this part of the meaning of justice Socrates offers a completely different view. He contradicted Thrasymachus’ views by stating that what is in the interest of the strong may not be that obvious after all, and that by making mistakes, the justice of the powerful has worked against his interest. Socrates also later offers a view on the definition of justice that states justice is “the right condition of the human soul”.