Essay on Platonic Justice

That being, just like doctors and ships captains, the rulers are there to what is advantageous for their subjects and not themselves. This is very important, if not the base objection Socrates has against the view that Thrasymachus interjected regarding his view of justice. It is also a topic of significance when discussing Socrates and Thrasymachus’ opposing viewpoints, because upon further examination, it offers ideas that would substantiate Socrates views as it does Thrasymachus’ views. First let us examine strengths in Socrates assertion of justice. Socrates poses scenarios to Thrasymachus in regard to medicine and the doctor.

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.

The debate moves on as Thrasymachus tries to define justice. Thrasymachus makes two critical points in his argument. He first says that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Thus the rulers govern on their own behalf. However Socrates shows that in fact the rulers are at the mercy of their subjects and make decisions that can be good or bad for the people and it is the right of the people to follow these actions or not. He states that "no knowledge considers or prescribes for the advantage of the stronger, but for that of the weaker, which it rules." [342d]

“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

To start with, Thrasymachus argues that it is profitable to act unjustly and harmful to act justly. When Thrasymachus first defines justice as nothing other than the advantage of the stronger, he refers to the ruler, which is the stronger, and the ruled (Plato, 338c). In this context, he believes that the ruling party in any type of regime – tyranny, democracy, or aristocracy – makes laws to its own advantage and defines the acts to its disadvantage as unjust (338d – 339a). For the subjects it is just to obey the laws and serve the ruler’s interest, so if there is a conflict between the interests of the ruler and the subjects, the ruler seeks what benefits itself through laws

Plato's view of Justice can be seen in his model of The Tripartite Soul. In this model Plato outlines 3 sectors of his ideal society. This theoretical society is composed of Guardians, Auxiliaries, and Producers. The Guardians were the upper class citizens who had the authority to pass judgment. Guardians were rational and wise, and could participate and become involved in politics. The Auxiliaries were positioned as courageous citizens who helped preserve the spirit and emotion of a society by "protecting and serving" much like a modern day public works department or police and fire squad. In the lowest tier of Plato's ideal society were the Producers, whose job it was to create. The Producers were to use temperance in their lives, for they were classified as appetitive souls who could easily succumb to bodily desires. The Producers were to practice asceticism, which is the eradication of bodily desires.

Justice is the advantage of the stronger according to Thrasymachus. He even goes a step farther to say that injustice is stronger and freer than justice, yet justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates shows that justice is in the receiver of it, not the provider. According to Socrates, a just man will be the healthier and happier man because he is wiser.

Plato?s view of Justice can be seen in his model of The Tripartite Soul. In this model Plato outlines 3 sectors of his ideal society. This theoretical society is composed of Guardians, Auxiliaries, and Producers. The Guardians were the upper class citizens who had the authority to pass judgment. Guardians were rational and wise, and could participate and become involved in politics. The Auxiliaries were positioned as courageous citizens who helped preserve the spirit and emotion of a society by ?protecting and serving? much like a modern day public works department or police and fire squad. In the lowest tier of Plato?s ideal society were the Producers, whose job it was to create. The Producers were to use temperance in their lives, for they were classified as appetitive souls who could easily succumb to bodily desires. The Producers were to practice asceticism, which is the eradication of bodily desires.

Book I of Plato's Republic could be a standalone piece based on all the important topics discussed between the characters in a mere chapter. One section of Book I stood out to me more than most, and that was Thrasymachus’s definition of justice. His observations on justice are often “seen as the first fundamental critique of moral values”. Thrasymachus describes justice as being in the interest of the stronger with an argument that ultimately holds more weaknesses than strengths.

Socrates responds to Thrasymachus’ argument that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger by saying that justice is actually what is advantageous for the weaker. He gives an example of a horse trainer. The horse trainer is obviously the superior of the two and in charge of the horse but it does what is advantageous to the horse not himself. The same goes for a doctor who does what is good for his patients and a captain does what is advantageous for his sailors.

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 other words, justice is always a matter of subordinating your own interests to the interests of someone in authority over you. So, when the ruled act to benefit the rulers, they are acting justly, but the rulers themselves are not subordinating their interests to anyone else, so they are acting unjustly. You see, if rulers were to act in the interest of the ruled, they would be subordinating their interests to those of the ruled, and so would in effect be putting the ruled in the position of authority and so would not themselves be genuine rulers anymore. Hence one cannot genuinely exercise the art of rulership without ipso facto behaving unjustly. Like Callicles, Thrasymachus believes that only an idiot would sacrifice his own interests to those of others, so Thrasymachus rejects justice as a con

Plato aims to give an account of the ethical life. Themes for example knowledge, the well-ordered life, and wisdom are connected into the discussion of ethical life, however, the principle of justice and the organization of the good life is the central topic of Plato's theories. Today we associate justice with the successful implementation and execution of political law. To the Ancient Greek's justice was used to describe the proper and correct method of living. Justice is harmony and was believed it could be achieved through learning. Plato first established that justice is good, and part of the good life in Book I. Plato listens to other philosophers theories and argues that justice is an excellence of character. The role that justice plays is to improve human nature. In addition to other things, justice is a form of goodness that cannot contribute in any activity that attempts to harm one's character.

Plato defines justice in terms of two types, group and individual. Group justice is a type of political justice and Plato identifies political justice as