Gay Justice In Plato's Encouragement For Gay Rights

“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

The position Thrasymachus takes on the definition of justice, as well as its importance in society, is one far differing from the opinions of the other interlocutors in the first book of Plato’s Republic. Embracing his role as a Sophist in Athenian society, Thrasymachus sets out to aggressively dispute Socrates’ opinion that justice is a beneficial and valuable aspect of life and the ideal society. Throughout the course of the dialogue, Thrasymachus formulates three major assertions regarding justice. These claims include his opinion that “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,” “it is just to obey the rulers,” and “justice is really the good of another […] and harmful to the one who obeys and serves.” Socrates

In The Republic Book IV, pp. 130e-136d, Socrates sets out to prove that societal justice is analogous to individual justice. In order to substantiate the analogy, Socrates compares the individual and the city. As he previously defined, justice in the city involves the power relationships between the different parts of the city, namely the guardians, the auxiliaries, and the producers.

Firstly, we must understand why justice is so important for this argument to hold any weight. Justice is something that has been talked about in many philosophical discussions but the first in depth conversation is from Plato’s Republic. In book one three different definitions are analyzed. The first is where you speak truthly and give back what you take from others, secondly Thrasymachus’s definition is that justice is to the advantage of the stronger. The definition that ends their conversation is that justice is better than being preyed on by others although not as good as always taking advantage of people. The reason why this conversation is discussed so in depth is because justice is seen as a virtue by Plato. This is on an individual level and a governmental level, as Thrasymachus discusses it. Plato believes that “justice in the city is the same thing as justice in the individual”. Given that information it’s obvious that justice is an overarching theme of the developing of the perfect republic in the book. Its viewed by Plato that justice is a “master virtue in its own sense” because if you and your city are just than everything else will be working together too. This is an elevated way of viewing justice and since its spoken about so much in the book it’s very important to hear Thrasymachus’s opposing argument to it.

In Plato’s Republic Book I, Socrates debate with Cepahlus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus on what justice is. Thrasymachus, the sophist, has the most complex account of justice. He states that justice is the advantage of the stronger, which Socrates vividly rejects. In this essay, I will look into Socrates’ refutation against Thrasymachus, and examine how successful his refutation is.

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

The Republic by Plato emphasizes how justice is exemplified by arguing that our soul is divided into three different parts and relates to Eudaimonia, happiness. A Greek philosopher, Socrates, was determined to find the exact meaning of justice. Socrates along with other philosophers, such as Thrasymachus, Adeimantus, and Glaucon, continuously argued until a perfect definition was formed. Justice first started in the city that had an organization of three classes: a general class of craftsmen, a class of soldiers, and a class of guardians (423a). In order to understand what justice looked like in an individual, Socrates used the classes that worked in the city as inspiration for parts of the soul within the human body. Socrates proposed that the three single parts of the soul consisted of rational, appetite, and spiritual, which need to harmoniously cooperate with one another for justice to occur. In result, Socrates defines justice as the quality of the soul where each part does its own job and does not meddle with the other parts, whereas injustice has one part that meddles with the job of another part of the soul. Overall, Socrates’ division of the soul stops at three parts because it is the basics of how one’s soul operates. It accomplished the necessary relationships of power and influence relating to one another, and without the three different elements, neither the soul nor the society would be just or be able to function properly.

In the Republic, the city-soul analogy serves as the starting point from which Plato builds the dialogue, and its implications phantasmically loom in the background of the work’s political and philosophical deliberations. At the end of Republic II, Socrates, in an effort to impugn Thrasymachus’ commendation of injustice, asserts that “a just soul and a just man will live well, and an unjust one badly.” (Republic 353e) Socrates therefore believes that the just live better lives than those who are unjust, and to demonstrate this to his main interlocutors he considers a city in which justice is applied. Socrates’ general approach is to draw out the fundamental concept of political justice, and, through the vehicle of the city-soul analogy, relate this

In Book I of the Republic after trying not to intervene in the discussion between Socrates and Polemarchus, Thrasymachus abruptly inserts himself into the conversation to offer his definition of justice. He defines justice as “the advantage of the stronger” (Plato 338c). Thrasymachus goes on to elaborate that the advantageous are the rulers of cities and that it is the ruling element in each city that makes the laws has the power. He claims that each ruler makes laws to its own advantage declaring the laws to be just for their subjects and will punish anyone who disobeys the laws as lawless and unjust. While Socrates agrees that justice is some sort of advantage he has a few objections to Thrasymachus’ definition. With respect to Thrasymachus’ view of justice this paper will reveal one of Socrates main objections to it, the strengths and weaknesses of the objection and presume any possible responses Thrasymachus may have to Socrates objection.

The Republic by Plato is about an Socrates’ ideal society, and begins by finding aa definition of what justice is. Socrates and Glaucon discuss “I expect then, to find justice in the following way. I think our city, if indeed it has been correctly founded, is completely good. Yes, it must be. Clearly then, it is wise, courageous, temperate, and just” (Page 112) Socrates, the character who is building the model society, finally figures out how he is going to find justice in Book 4. Socrates determines the city and the soul must contain the four virtues of being wise, courageous, temperate, and just. He needs to define what each of the virtues truly mean. After defining what it means for a city and the soul to be wise, courageous, and temperate, he defines what it means to be just. Socrates defines a just city as, “When moneymaking, auxiliary, and guardian class each do their own work

One of the ideas that Socrates and Plato had views on is on the idea of justice. The idea of justice is quite different to whom you ask. Some believe that justice is given by punishing those that need to be punished, such as criminals or bad rulers of a nation. Others believe that justice is given by giving equal rights to everyone, or to those that deserve it. In their views, Socrates and Plato had discussed that justice is different to those who saw it. They believed that justice could not be defined without saying that is beneficial or advantageous. A just person, they believe, is wise and good. The unjust

The Golden Age of Greece known as Classical Greece was the peak of Greek civilization. History recalls that this period consisted of inventions, innovations, and many great minds all alive during the same time. These great men influenced western civilization and without them there would be no western civilization to exist. One of these great minds was Plato, a man who was responsible for laying down the foundations for philosophy. The philosophical question he sought answers for are still being debated today.

The problem with this understanding of justice is that for Socrates, justice is a virtue that applies universally everywhere, while for Thracymachus justice would change from city to city depending on the type of ruler. For instance, if gambling is legal in city A and illegal in city B,

The Republic of Plato Book I begs the question, what is justice and what does it mean to be just. Socrates and Thrasymachus argue back and forth about the true meaning of justice throughout the book. Although Socrates is younger than Thrasymachus, he seems to have the most credible arguments. Thrasymachus continually argues in vanity due to his old age, and is continually proved wrong by Socrates on multiple occasions. Thrasymachus even goes as far as blushes (350d) from the embarrassment of ignorance. One of the main disputes between the two is when Socrates argues against Thrasymachus’ idea of justice being the advantage of the strong by indirectly arguing that justice is instead a virtue.

In the Republic, Plato through the mouth of Socrates attempts to engage in a discussion with Plato’s two brother, Glaucon and Adeimantus, who challenge him to address the value of justice and, why it would always be more profitable to act justly rather than not. But before we have even made our way through half of the Republic, Glaucon seems to believe that they have successfully answered this question by the end of Book IV. He takes it that after Socrates has explained what it is for the soul to be just, the profit of being and acting just follows. Throughout this essay however, I will argue that Glaucon’s conclusion that their question of the value of justice has been answered—if we can take it as a conclusion—is unsatisfactory in the very least. The insufficiency in the argument stems from the ambiguity in the relationship between just actions and their necessity for the maintaining of a just soul (which I will later discuss in greater detail). Despite Socrates’ claim then, that just actions are required to sustain a just soul, I contend that, at this point in the Republic, their discussion of justice and its value has left it nonetheless possible for an unjust action to be more profitable to a person, without that action being necessarily detrimental to the justice of their soul.