Justice In Plato's The Republic

In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.

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

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.

In Book I, Socrates states that "Injustice... causes civil war, hatred, and fighting among themselves, while justice brings friendship and a

In Book II of Plato’s Republic, Glaucon and Adeimantus present a challenge to Socrates’ view of justice. Previously, in Book I of the Republic, Socrates presents several counterarguments to Thrasymachus’ belief that it is to your own advantage to practice injustice rather than to follow laws, if you can get away with it (Babcock). Glaucon and Adeimantus sought to present a stronger defense to Thrasymachus’ view. The main viewpoint they try to establish is that it is to our advantage to practice injustice rather than justice and that the good life is the life of injustice (Babcock). Several arguments are used to reinforce the central view through use of the Ring of Gyges story, an account of the origin of justice, a classification of

Socrates claims that an individual is just when each of the three parts of the soul does its duty, and all three parts are in harmony (441e). More specifically, the calculating part should rule the soul, the spirited part should assist the calculating part, and the desiring part should follow the commands of the calculating part (442c-d). A just individual 's action is guided by wisdom and knowledge while an unjust individual is filled with ignorance and opinion (443e-444a; 582a). Because their souls are just, just individuals should rule the city so that the city will also be just. This is because Socrates thinks the city and the soul are isomorphic (368d-e). If Socrates’ definition of justice in the individual is correct, then any action of the rulers should be just.

In Plato’s The Republic and The Apology, the topic of justice is examined from multiple angles in an attempt to discover what justice is, as well as why living a just life is desirable. Plato, writing through Socrates, identifies in The Republic what he thought justice was through the creation of an ideal city and an ideal soul. Both the ideal city and the ideal soul have three components which, when all are acting harmoniously, create what Socrates considers to be justice. Before he outlines this city and soul, he listens to the arguments of three men who hold popular ideas of the period. These men act to legitimize Socrates’ arguments because he finds logical errors in all of their opinions. In The Apology, a different, more down-to-Earth, Socrates is presented who, through his self-defense in court, reveals a different, even contradictory, view of the justice presented in The Republic. In this paper, the full argument of justice from The Republic will be examined, as well as the possible inconsistencies between The Republic and The Apology.

What is justice? In Plato’s Republic, this question is asked between Socrates and other conversationalists. In the beginning of this work, many different definitions of justice are debated. However, to provide clarity, Socrates proposes that, instead of discussing what justice is, they should apply the term holistically and try to imagine justice in an “ideal city.” From this, the city of Kallipolis was created.

The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those

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.

In Plato’s Republic, justice is often characterized as a just act resulting in a just outcome. Moderation is factored into this as well. Moderation allows for not just a being, but for a whole city to continue to function justly. The cardinal virtues that enable justice can also be the same for moderation. Justice and injustice are compared when running a city, but only the just city will cause perfect serenity between all three classes of people. Justice and moderation are distinctly similar but also exquisitely different. Plato distinctly outlines the makings for his just city. The blueprints left behind by Plato are crucial to understanding where justice and moderation factor in to cause a just city to function justly.

This essay discusses and clarifies a concept that is central to Plato's argument in the Republic — an argument in favour of the transcendent value of justice as a human good; that justice informs and guides moral conduct. Plato's argument implies that justice and morality are intimately interconnected, because the excellence and goodness of human life — the best way for a person to live — is intimately dependent upon and closely interwoven with those 'things that we find

Plato’s interpretation of justice as seen in ‘The Republic’ is a vastly different one when compared to what we and even the philosophers of his own time are accustomed to. Plato would say justice is the act of carrying out one’s duties as he is fitted with. Moreover, if one’s duties require one to lie or commit something else that is not traditionally viewed along with justice; that too is considered just by Plato’s accounts in ‘The Republic.’ I believe Plato’s account of justice, and his likely defense against objections are both clear and logical, thus I will endeavor to argue his views as best as I can.

In Plato’s Republic he defines justice as “doing one’s own work and not meddling with what is not one’s own” (Plato 139, 433b). This definition begs the question what is one’s own work? Plato states that one’s own work is the work that one’s nature is best suited for, as each person is born with a different nature (Plato 101, 370b). To come to this definition Plato compares justice within the human soul to justice within a city. If Plato can find justice within the city and prove that the individual is only a smaller version of the city then he will have found the form of justice, the aspect by which we recognize justice in anything else.

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”.