Justice : Polomarchus's Definition Of Justice

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

Throughout the dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates, they both try to come up with an understanding of the relationship between piety and justice. Within the discussion, Socrates questions Euthyphro to see if he can define the difference and similarities between justice and piety, and if they interact with each other. Eventually, Euthyphro and Socrates came up with the conclusion that justice is a part of piety. This is the relationship that I agree most with because in my own opinion, I believe that all of the gods and people agree that human beings who commit unjust actions need to be punished for their actions.

In this paper, I will be discussing harm, specifically in the view of Socrates as depicted in Plato’s The Apology of Socrates. I will discuss the various instances in which Socrates weighs in on what harm means and I will make the claim that Socrates’ definition of harm is ambiguous yet targeted at preserving his own sense of pride; and I will defend that claim.

“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

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

In Republic II, Glaucon and Socrates pose the question of whether justice is intrinsically good, or instrumentally good. Further, the two men wish to discover which life is best - the just life or the unjust one. While Glaucon argues that the unjust life is best, Socrates argues that the just life is truly better. In this paper, I will summarize both Glaucon’s and Socrates’ arguments, and provide a critical analysis of the opposing views.

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.

Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense against charges of corrupting the youth and heresy, reveal the ancient teacher’s view of justice as fairness and support of rule of law. In the Apology, Socrates faces a moral dilemma: to either accept his punishment for crimes he did not commit or to accept the assistance of his friends and escape death by the hand of the state. His choice to accept death in order to maintain rule of law reveals his belief of justice. He beliefs his punishment to be just not because he committed the crimes but because his sentence came through a legal process to which he consented. By sparing his life, he would weaken the justice system of Athens which he values above his own existence. This difference between the two men’s beliefs regarding justice draws the sharpest contrast in their views of effective leadership and government.

Socrates’ second argument is an attempt to show that Callicles admiration of courageous men is inconsistent with the view that all pleasures are good regardless of their source or the character of those who experience them. Socrates provides the example of cowards in war, who are pained by the advance of the enemy and rejoice upon their retreat by at least as much as the courageous (498a5-ca). Therefore if pleasure is good then the coward who is happy by the enemy’s retreat is as good as the courageous, something which Callicles doesn’t want to portray as he believes the cowardly and foolish are bad. In the end Callicles is forced to admit a distinction between good and bad pleasures and this distinction in turn allows Socrates to condemn contemporary Athenian politicians for ministering to the pleasures rather than the welfare of their people. From that point on Callicles so disgusted by the outcome only replies to Socrates in a formal manner thereby allowing Socrates to engage in a lengthy monologue in which the choice between philosophy and a public life is examined in the light of conclusions already established.9 Socrates argues that contemporary statesman are like poets pandering to the pleasures of the masses however Callicles thinks this only sensible for the ‘”leviathan” will kill you if you don’t humour it.’10 Callicles may well have been right in asserting that Socrates would be at the mercy of anyone who chooses to kill or injure him however immunity from

Socrates was a former infantryman, having fought in three campaigns during the war with Sparta, so it is no surprise that he believed justice should not be invoked by the citizens’ pleading. He

Polus can't believe this claim and asks Socrates why it is that he would rather suffer injustice than inflict it. Socrates says that he believes that, "…doing what's unjust is actually the greatest of evils." If we are going too morally suffer for deeds that we saw fit, it is actually worse than suffering at the hands of someone else. By inflicting injustice on others we do not use our power intelligently and morally hurt ourselves, and therefore are

Socrates argues about the complex question about whether it is better to suffer injustice or to do injustice. This means for example, to kill, or to be killed. Suffering injustice is essentially being the victim of a crime; while doing injustice puts you in the position of a perpetrator. There are differences in answering the question one way or another: one receiving the injustice and one dispensing it. In our world today, there are an immense amount of tragedies. Ranging from school shootings, to terrorist bombings.

Within The Eumenides by Aeschylus, one of the main themes is Justice. Justice is a virtue perfecting the will, which enables one to give others their due. Justice involves punishing actions that are wrong and defending what is right. According to the play, justice is essential for order in society, for everyone must be given their due. Without justice, there would be a lack of order and peace.

On examining Thrasymachus' idea that it pays to be perfectly unjust, Socrates refutes this argument in Book 4 as he speaks of the souls three parts; wisdom, spirit, and desire. The civil war between these three parts is shown to be the cause of injustice, but before Socrates can correlate this with the regimes of certain

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?”