Justice Is Not Ambiguous : Justice

“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

Dating back many decades, it appears that lobbying and politics have always gone hand and hand on any political stage. Lobbying has always had a strong presence in the legislation system. Lobbying is the process of offering campaign contributions, bribes, or information to policymakers for the purpose of achieving favorable policy outcomes. Conventional wisdom suggests that lobbying is the preferred mean for exerting political influence in rich countries and corruption in poor countries. The legislation is meant to benefit society and ensure that citizens are having their voices heard, instead of hindering them in favour of the multi-national corporations. Lobbying has a negative influence on legislations in both developed and developing

The controversy surrounding political lobbying does not question the act of influencing public officials, but rather the ethics relating to how these public officials are influenced. It is important to distinguish the fine line between bribery and lobbying. It is illegal to bribe a public official in the United States. This would mean that an individual could not provide compensation to a public official for them to behave, or vote, in a specific manner. Lobbyists may donate money to a specific candidate’s political campaign, but they may only do so when there is no expectation that the public official will behave in a favorable way toward the lobbyist or their clients (Mackinder). Lobbyists may bring public officials, their immediate families, and staff on trips or out to dinner. While it is illegal for a lobbyist representing a corporate client from directly bringing, it is not illegal for foreign governments to sponsor for these said trips (Goldmacher). What has begun to happen is lobbyists representing corporate clients may bring public officials on these trips, if the trip is sponsored by a foreign government. The Senate Office of Public Records reported that $3.23 billion was spent on lobbying in 2013, with 12,300 registered lobbyists. Professor James Thurber, who teaches at American University, has studied congressional lobbying for over 30 years, and does not believe these figures are accurate. He believes

The United States has experienced fundamental changes that are dramatically detrimental to democracy. Voters’ ability to define political discourse has been so diminished that even decisive election results like Barack Obama’s in 2012 have little impact. That’s because powerful interests — freed to, in effect, buy elections, unhindered by downsized and diffused media that must rely on revenue from campaign ads — now set the rules of engagement. Lobbying involves working to bring pressure to bear on policy makers to gain favorable policy outcomes. In order to accomplish their goals, interest groups develop a strategy or plan of action and execute it through specific tactics. The particular strategies developed and the specific tactics used, however, vary widely both among and within political

Many controversial topics have surfaced recently, but one that tends to fly under the radar is lobbying. Lobbying is defined as a group of persons who work or conduct a campaign to influence members of a legislature to vote according to a group’s special interests (“Lobby”). Although average citizens are not fully aware of the issue, it is quite contentious in politics. For those who are against it, they believe that restrictions should be placed on lobbying because it distorts democracy. Lobbyists use money and cost-effective strategies to sway the opinions of lawmakers. Others see lobbyists as effective, political tour guides who help pass legislation. An analysis of the lobbying process reveals the outcomes are often

One of the issues I am most passionate about is that of money in American politics. Increasing campaign costs, coupled with a decrease in the number of donors contributing to those campaigns, is a disturbing trend which has caused many to feel the need to question the state of our democracy—myself included. The problem of mainstream political corruption and legalized bribery is one that I was made aware of three years ago, and has since become one of the things keeping me up at night most often.

Wayne, Lasser, Miller and others tend to agree that lobbyists and PACs have a great amount of influence over congress members because they may have direct connections and give campaign contributions. Recently, the airlines industry convinced congress to pass a $15 billion aid package it needs in order to survive. “The airlines had plenty of resources to draw on: 27 in-houses lobbyists, augmented by lobbyists from 42 Washington firms, including former White House aides and transportation secretaries, as well as the airlines own chief executives and corporate board members, whom all are well known in the halls of congress”(Wayne, NYT, 10/01/01. Lasser, American Politics, 1999. Miller, The American Prospect, 10/23/00. Geiger, Washington Post, 11/4-10/91.)

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

As several authors this week contend, lobbying tends to carry a negative connotation in everyday language. The key issues that the authors seek to address this week, are when lobbying occurs, the nature of lobbying, and how it works. Overall, there is some agreement on the fact that lobbying is prevalent, the disagreements arise over what purpose lobbying serves, and what the strategies underlying lobbying are.

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 Plato’s Republic, several competing explanations of justice are offered. First, we hear Thrasymachus’s account of justice in Book I, as being the advantage of the stronger. We then receive Glaucon’s explanation of justice in Book II: the agreement between men to act just in order to avoid the pain of being on the receiving end of an unjust act. Finally, Socrates provides us with the best definition of justice, saying that justice is the result of three specific classes performing their function within a city in order for the collaboration to conclude in self-sufficiency. Socrates’s definition of justice outshines those of Thrasymachus and Glaucon because he takes into account that not every person is the same, but everyone is equal. Socrates’s refutations of both Thrasymachus and Glaucon help completely shape his argument of what justice is when it comes to Book 4. Socrates made his definition of justice general enough to where it accounted for everyone in the city. As long as everyone performed the duty they were naturally capable of, they were just.

In book I, we find Socrates in a discussion to find what is Justice. Every definition offered by Socrates’ friends is shot down as being inadequate. Finally, Thrasymachus accuses Socrates of only stating what is wrong with everyone’s ideas, and offers no definition of his own. However, I think that Plato purposefully left the question of ‘what is Justice’ unanswered by Socrates, because Plato believes in Thrasymachus’s notion of Justice.

Thrasymachus uses Socrates ‘definition of justice to lash out at him. He says that if then his definition on the nature of justice is right, it follows that a life devoted to justice is worse than a life devoted to injustice. However, people who practice justice are regarded as being superior to those who are unjust, both in intelligence and character. The society believes that justice is a moral obligation, as well as a proper virtue enshrined in the human soul (Plato, Grube, & Reeve,

In Books I and II of The Republic of Plato Translated by Allan Bloom, there many definitions of justice. Socrates knows the definition from the start of the discussion but he wont reveal the definition until he believes Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, and Glaucon come up with their own definitions of justice. If they are wrong the discussion continues until they reach consensus, which is hard for them because Socrates masks his definition pretty well. For them to come up with a definition they have to look at the big picture. In book I they talk about what it means to be just. In book II they talk more about justice in the city as a whole. So in order to figure out what the true definition of justice is, you have to look at the big picture otherwise the definition can be skewed. Lastly you have to develop the definition yourself and learn and further develop your definition from talking with other people because that is the best form of education.