Platonic Justice

In the discussion between Socrates and Glaucon that involved how to create an ideal city, they divided the people into three classes: rulers, auxiliaries, and craftsmen. In this city each class has a certain role. The rulers are the highest of rank in the city. They are older, wise men who govern the state and make decisions in the best interest of the

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.

“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

Now let us take a look into the background of the story. Plato gives his ideals on a perfect society and everything it should include. He basically implies that justice is rightness, and rightness is whatever he feels it should be. He breaks society down into guardians, wage earners, and auxiliaries. Wage earners are people such as surgeons or shoemakers.

The position Thrasymachus takes on the definition of justice, as well as its importance in society, is one far differing from the opinions of the other interlocutors in the first book of Plato’s Republic. Embracing his role as a Sophist in Athenian society, Thrasymachus sets out to aggressively dispute Socrates’ opinion that justice is a beneficial and valuable aspect of life and the ideal society. Throughout the course of the dialogue, Thrasymachus formulates three major assertions regarding justice. These claims include his opinion that “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,” “it is just to obey the rulers,” and “justice is really the good of another […] and harmful to the one who obeys and serves.” Socrates

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.

Plato’s Republic proposes a number of intriguing theories, ranging from his contemporary view of ethics to political idealism. It is because of Plato’s emerging interpretations that philosophers still refer to Plato’s definitions of moral philosophy as a standard. Plato’s possibly most argued concept could be said to be the analogy between city and soul in Book IV, partially due to his expansive analysis of justice and the role justice plays in an “ideal city,” which has some key flaws. Despite these flawed assumptions that my essay will point out, Plato’s exposition on ethics is still relevant for scholars and academics to study, due to his interpretive view on morality and justice.

Plato and Aristotle, arguably the most important philosophers of their time, both made attempts to define justice. Being that Aristotle was a student of Plato, their ideas share many similarities. Both viewed justice as the harmonious interaction of people in a society. However, Plato defined his ideal of justice with more usage of metaphysics, invoking his Form of the Good, while Aristotle took a more practical approach, speaking in terms of money and balance. Although Aristotle's ideal of justice may seem superior, upon further inspection, Plato's ideal of justice is the stronger.

Guardians are considered to be the most rational or the rational party in Plato’s state. They are described as wise individuals that can ensure the welfare of their society. Actually, they are compared, in the Republic, to dogs for their strength, loyalty, intelligence and courage. They are believed to need strength in order to defend their territory and fight for it when it is needed. They also need loyalty to make fair judgments; intelligence to make wise decisions and courage to pursue goals. These characteristics constitute the main traits that good guardians should have because, according to Plato, they are supposed to establish justice in the society and take care of the interest of the state as dogs serve their owners’ with loyalty and protect their interest. Therefore, defending their fellows’ interest, involves high spirit and philosophical disposition that should be used to serve the other social classes. However, this should not make them aggressive or arrogant towards their fellows and neighbors. In the contrary, they should be gentle towards them which would require from them a love for learning and philosophical thinking. Nevertheless, a question rises about the way these guardians

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

Justice and discussion as to what it actually is presents as one of the major themes in Plato’s Republic. Plato defines justice as the highest virtue in a state, built on principles of good. Just society is the one, in which everyone fully realizes abilities given to them by nature and rightly practices those abilities and nothing else. Justice is closely related to the person and the ideal state, tying them together. “Justice is a virtue of a soul” (R. 353e) and just like how there are three

“Justice is the art that gives each man what is good for his soul”. This statement is implies that justice is goodness and doing what’s right. This also implies that being a good person and doing good actions will in turn benefit the people by improving their Lives. Justice is good because it sets a standard of goodness that people in society would have to uphold and follow. Therefore this would lead to an environment of positivity and goodness for individuals. The Mariam-Webster dictionary gives the world one definition that states “Justice is the maintenance and administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of confliction claims”. However According to book one of The Republic by Plato, Justice is conveyed as a very complex topic that cannot be defined by a single definition. The topic of justice is discussed and broken down by Socrates, who asks the question “what is justice?” , he seeks out a definition from the company around him and through different given definitions of Justice, Socrates proves that there is no one definition for justice because there are many contradictions and exceptions that have to be considered in certain situations. In this essay I will discuss how justice relates to goodness and how it can be “the art that gives each man what is good for his soul” by using the Socrates’ discussion on the various definitions of justice from book one in The Republic by Plato.

Justice in philosophy is one of the most important political and moral concepts. The word justice comes from the Latin word jus, which means right or law. English Dictionaries defines it as one who typically does what is morally right as well as offering the word “fair” as a synonym. But philosophers get beyond etymology and what the dictionary definitions are and look deeper into it. For example, the nature of justice is both a moral virtue of character and a quality needed for political society, as well as knowing how it applies to social and ethical decision making. The question to answer is how Plato and Rawls theories were used for philosophical conceptions of justice. These are known to be the greatest theories of ancient Greece. Not only their theories of justice will be explained, but also how Plato and Rawls apply their own theories to controversial social issues like civil disobedience, punishment, equal opportunity for women, property rights, and international relations.

This concept is based on his belief that philosophers are the only holders of true knowledge. In Republic Plato uses Socrates in dialogue to state, “Once one has seen it (Forum of Good), however, one must conclude that it is the cause of all that is correct and beautiful in anything, that it produces both light and its source in the visible realm, and that in the intelligible realm it controls and provides truth and understanding, so that anyone who is to act sensibly in private or public must see it” (Plato 189). Plato uses Socrates to argue that the only people with true knowledge are those who have access to the Forum of Good. According to Plato, this Forum is the source of all other forums and all intelligence and knowledge so a political state must have access to the Forum in order to thrive. However, the only ones who have access to this forum are philosophers and for this reason he argues that the welfare of the state is dependent on the existence of philosophers. He furthers this argument by stating that as a result it is philosophers who are most fit to rule, thus introducing the concept of a philosopher king as the most fit form of political rule for the welfare of all. These principles, although they have been adapted to account for differences in beliefs, societies, and political structures, are still the basis of many current political

In order Justice to be pure and absolute, there should be no other purposes or motives attached to its virtuous state. So, when Glaucon’s candid argument is conceptualized, it belittles the principle and the role of Justice, for the attack has some conceivable qualities of truth in human beings. It is true that our actions have some kind of consequences either good or bad, depending of the action. Glaucon hence suggests that justice holds no value itself; for example, one does not merely take medicines for the sake of taking it, rather it is taken for the outcome of it, which is healing. Or when one does good deeds the person might feel a sense of satisfaction, but not of the action alone, but of the result it produces, such as the compensation either here on earth or in the afterlife. Moreover, Glaucon proposes that injustice is superior to Justice; a man is just because his weakness forces him to, but if given the power, he will do wrong. To better illustrate and extend his credibility of his argument, he details the myth of the ring of Gyges, a shepherd boy who discovers a ring with invisibility powers, and not surprisingly uses it for evil purposes by murdering the King Candaules and taking his place: Yet another painful charge against Justice. Socrates, in his part, explains the flaws of these vibrant arguments. In order to understand better what is Justice in an individual, he magnifies it by forming an ideal city called Kallipolis, this city is governed by