Plato 's View On Justice And Human Nature

Plato’s idea of civic justice displays a criteria for specialization that holds each individual responsible for producing their own rendition of excellence that leads to a just life, which produces a just city, and ultimately civic justice. Plato describes civic justice as “…doing one’s own work provided that it comes to be in a certain way” (433b-pg.108).

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.

The Crito and the Republic were both works of Plato. Plato’s works were divided into early, middle and late dialogues. The Crito falls into the category of the formal while the Republic falls into the category of the latter. In his early dialogues, Plato was influenced by Socratic philosophy but as he ages, he starts to develop his distinct and independent philosophy. Justice is the fundamental concept that will be discussed in this paper. The scope of discussion will mainly revolve around the Crito, the Apology and the Republic. In Socrates’ submission and acceptance of his sentence lies the implication that Socrates agrees with democracy as a political system. Plato, on the other hand,

They are educated through their strict curriculum, and due to the virtues that they learn, they are able to rule in a just manner (Plato 515a). The purpose of life for Plato is to create a just state. Through a broad education, and a democratic government, justice can be pursued. Justice is defined as the harmony that results when everyone is actively engaged in fulfilling his role and does not meddle with that of others (Plato 434e). When each person follows their role in life, stability can be achieved in the state.

One of the central claims of Plato’s Republic is that justice is not only desirable for its own sake, but that it maximises the happiness of those who practice it. This paper examines Plato’s arguments in support of this thesis to determine (a) what he means by happiness, (b) to what extent it exists in his proposed ideal state, and (c) whether this in any way substantiates his claims about the benefits of justice. In particular, I will argue that there are two different conceptions of happiness at play in The Republic, and two methods of achieving its highest form, namely the pursuit of justice and philosophy, before arriving at a final definition of

The main issue Plato has with democracy, as outlined in The Republic of Plato, is democracy has a uniquely level playing field for all and that this leads to people working toward endeavors that do not suit their best abilities, which goes against Plato’s own image of justice as Plato’s image holds to the idea that justice is primarily found in the community more so than the individual and that it is realized on an individual and societal level when people help to advance society by working toward endeavors that best suit their natural abilities (55). This democratic equality, the author feels, leads to those who are unequipped and unprepared to rule leading the masses. For example, Plato utilizes the metaphor of the ship to show this issue of democracy, that many of the crew, though not equipped to lead, will try to steer to steer the ship and that the struggle will eventually lead the crew to wreck the ship (195-196).

In his philosophy, Plato places a large emphasis on the importance of the idea of justice. This emphasis can be seen especially in his work ‘The Republic’ where, through his main character Socrates, he attempts to define the nature of justice and to justify this definition. One of the methods used by Socrates to strengthen or rather explain his argument on justice is through his famous city-soul analogy, where a comparison between a just city and a just soul/individual is made. Through this analogy, Socrates attempts to explain the nature of justice, how it is the virtue of the soul and is therefore intrinsically valuable to the

Like other ancient philosophers, Aristotle and Plato had two different conceptions of the state, justice, and politics. They both lived in Greece but had different points of views on the natural of all citizens and how citizens were capable of being perfect in the state. Surprisingly, the same debates that guided Plato and Aristotle’s work remain with us today. What is a good citizen? What makes a good man? Justice? Society? Moreover, the question is why they had different views on the same perspective that has helped shaped many governmental rules and societies.

In his Socratic dialogue The Republic, Plato’s primary concern is to define and defend the concept of justice. Socrates, his mentor, serves as narrator and Plato’s interpreter in the dialogue. He discusses the meaning of justice and how one can achieve it, and ultimately reach happiness. The definition given to justice, although not completely solidified, is that being just means doing what one is best suited for and focusing on one’s own behavior and life. His strategy is to present the idea of a utopian just city-state, and derive the notion of individual justice from that, suggesting that his definition of it will apply to both large political structures and single human beings. The hypothetical city-state is ruled by Philosopher-Kings –

You can sit down and turn on any news channel and feast your eyes on the many injustices of the world; terrorist attacks, armed robberies, and school shootings, just to name a few. Based on these examples it seems obvious that the many injustices in the world seem inherently wrong. The very definition states that unjust actions are not in accordance to what is morally right and fair. It seems odd to even question why justice is better than injustice. However, this is the question that is contemplated in Plato’s Book II of The Republic. In this essay, I plan to discuss the argument for a just life being better and the argument for an unjust life being better as discussed in the book. I will then finish by discussing where Glaucon’s argument falls short, as well as my own argument that answering the question of just vs. unjust is based upon an individual’s moral viewpoint of what is right.

As one of the most significant works in philosophy, The Republic has been one of the most historically and intellectually influential basis of many political theories and philosophical approaches since its first appearance. It is also crucial to mention that the book contains both Plato’s and Socrates’ arguments of life and the view of the Athenian Democracy in the ancient Greek world. Therefore, it can be confusing and complicated to decide to which philosopher the arguments belong. The main focus of the book is to find the definition and the whereabouts of order, justice and to establish a just state, as well as to prove that a just man is happier than the unjust man by providing examples. The true importance of The Republic lies in the fact that everything has meaning in it, not only the arguments, but also the people who act as metaphors for the different kind of roles, which they fulfill in the Athenian society, furthermore the way they speak symbolizes those roles and every one of them embodies a part of the soul and the city-state. Even though it is not obvious, Plato / Socrates criticizes the Athenian society and tries to establish a new, ideal one with the different people he meets and talks to in the book.

Another thing that Socrates discusses in book four is how the city relates to an individual person. He says that there are threes parts to the soul just as there is three parts to the city. He establishes an appetitive part which relates to the producing class, a rational part which relates to the guardians, and a spirited part which relates to the auxiliaries. This division is much

The "city" that Socrates and his companions develop through their discussions cannot be interpreted as a moral system, nor even as a model of a moral system in practice, because it does not allow for that autonomy presupposed by moral agency. In Book IX of the Republic, Socrates argues that if one

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.

Plato’s Republic introduces a multitude of important and interesting concepts, of topics ranging from music, to gender equality, to political regime. For this reason, many philosophers and scholars still look back to The Republic in spite of its age. Yet one part that stands out in particular is Plato’s discussion of the soul in the fourth book of the Republic. Not only is this section interesting, but it was also extremely important for all proceeding moral philosophy, as Plato’s definition has been used ever since as a standard since then. Plato’s confabulation on the soul contains three main portions: defining each of the three parts and explanation of their functions, description of the interaction of the parts, and then how the the