Does Plato Believe There Can Ever Be A Just Society

Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote “One man’s justice is another’s injustice.” This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient to Socrates also. Eventually, the two agree “that it is never just to harm anyone” (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a

The ideal society as suggested by Plato is composed of three classes: the producers, the auxiliaries, and the guardians.

A just society as one in which all citizens willingly subordinated their private, selfish interests to the common good

As we progress further down the road to prosperity there is always a time before or after that knocks us down and shows either the best or the worst of society. With that said society to an

A just and fair world filled with just and fair people does not exist- it is a utopia. This

Wolff (1970) defines a state as a group of persons who have the right to exercise supreme authority within a territory, over a population. He proposes In the Defense of Anarchism, men are autonomous, as higher degrees of autonomy is achieved, a man will resist the claim that states have authority over him. This illustrates the puzzle of Political obligation and can be explained through the appeal to consent.

It is in the public’s interest to maintain a predictable standard of acceptable behavior. Without such a standard, society will fall into chaos.

away from the elite social groups, and now be for everybody. Also just because a

The idea then of a just society I contend, comes down to people living under a fair and common law, order, political system, social organization, as well as everyone having personal and political freedom.

To live in a place, where equality, peace, security and dignity are guaranteed is a good fortune to those who found a just society. Though it is not an easy task to establish a just society, but it is not an impossible idea. A just society requires a society of law abiding citizens who work together for the betterment of the society, where laws are human rights informed and social policies are effective.

     Sir Thomas More writes, in his book Utopia, about a society that is perfect in practically ever sense. The people all work an equal amount and everything they need for survival is provided. Most importantly is that everyone living in this perfect society is happy and content with their everyday lives. In this society everybody supports everyone. The community is only as strong as its weakest link. For society to progress everyone must work together. Opponents of the Utopian system, however, feel that the strong should not have to look after the weak. Progress would be maximized if all the resources are spent on the people most qualified to help society. A Utopian society, as perfect as the one

Plato’s Republic proposes a number of intriguing theories, ranging from his contemporary view of ethics to political idealism. It is because of Plato’s emerging interpretations that philosophers still refer to Plato’s definitions of moral philosophy as a standard. Plato’s possibly most argued concept could be said to be the analogy between city and soul in Book IV, partially due to his expansive analysis of justice and the role justice plays in an “ideal city,” which has some key flaws. Despite these flawed assumptions that my essay will point out, Plato’s exposition on ethics is still relevant for scholars and academics to study, due to his interpretive view on morality and justice.

Plato and Aristotle, arguably the most important philosophers of their time, both made attempts to define justice. Being that Aristotle was a student of Plato, their ideas share many similarities. Both viewed justice as the harmonious interaction of people in a society. However, Plato defined his ideal of justice with more usage of metaphysics, invoking his Form of the Good, while Aristotle took a more practical approach, speaking in terms of money and balance. Although Aristotle's ideal of justice may seem superior, upon further inspection, Plato's ideal of justice is the stronger.

Plato's Republic is often read as a political work, as a statement of some sort on government, society, and law. This is certainly not a rash reading of the dialogue; it is called the Republic, and over half of it is devoted to the construction of a city through speech, a city complete with a government structure, a military, an economic system, and laws. However, I believe that to read the Republic as a political statement is inaccurate. Although Socrates and his companions construct a city out of speech as they attempt to define justice, the dialogue repeatedly frames justice as something that cannot be established through a fixed system of morality, let alone through a rigid

The world is a complicated place and today's standards of society make it even more difficult to live and act in one's own way. I sometimes wonder what life would be like if we could start all over and build a brand new society - a society that guarantees social justice for all groups and full rights to every individual. Would there be a way to make everything and everyone equal? From the beginning society has been judgmental in one way or another, rather it is through racism, sexism, or classicism. There has always been a group of people who declared themselves righteous above all others and if one was not a part of this group he or she was discriminated against simply for not being the same as the dominating group.