Pondering The Policy And Its Principle

Glaucon sees the issue from the perspective of personal gain or loss, while Plato sees it from outside that realm in the sphere of absolute truths. Clearly, an absolute truth is more viable and defensible than a personal interest. Justice is a higher order than personal advantage and as is associated with happiness whether one receives a reward for justice or not. The argument Glaucon raises against the absolutism of justice is exemplified in his story of the man who discovers a gold ring that allows him to become invisible. Glaucon proposes these two representative men as extreme examples of the two sides of the argument and suggests that their positions be examined after their death to see which was happier, based on the premise that the unjust man meted out injustice at will without ever suffering it himself, while the just man acted only justly but was treated unjustly himself. Glaucon takes this example to the extreme, with the just man being: “whipped...racked...bound; he'll have both his eyes burned out; and at the end, when he has undergone every sort of evil, he'll be crucified and know that one shouldn't wish to be, but to seem to be, just” (39). Glaucon sets these two men at extremes to prove his point-that happiness does not come from being

ABSTRACT. This paper seeks to reject Socrates ' arguments against Thrasymachus ' account of the just and unjust in Plato 's Republic, and, in doing so, show that Thrasymachus ' account is in fact a coherent and plausible account of justice. I begin by describing the context of Socrates and Thrasymachus ' argument and what it would take for Socrates to overcome the Thrasymachian account. I then describe the Thrasymachian account and argue for its coherence. I attack the Socratic method of deconstructing Thrasymachus ' argument and show that Thrasymachus true argument remains unaddressed throughout the course of the their exploration and Republic as a whole. I conclude that Thrasymachus – although himself unaware – succeeds in proposing a plausible and defensible account of justice and that Socrates misleads both Thrasymachus and the reader to advance his own conception of justice.

Glaucon begins by arguing that people only act justly because they believe that the action will reap reward. He essentially argues that justice is a necessary evil and without it society would tear itself apart. He argues that justice is a social contract formed because the ‘disadvantages of suffering injury exceed the advantages of inflicting it’(Plato, 2008). Essentially he

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.

Plato’s Republic, is a classic philosophical novel that covers many points and topics regarding philosophy. One of these main points includes justice. In this essay I will be answering the question of whether justice in soul is choice worthy for its own sake. While this topic is quite complex, I will use a mixture of personal analysis as well as evidence from the book itself to assert that justice in soul is the best choice for its own sake. In the following paragraphs I will discuss what justice in the soul is, why justice in soul is choice worthy and finally to what extent this choice entails.

The Republic by Plato examines many aspects of the human condition. In this piece of writing Plato reveals the sentiments of Socrates as they define how humans function and interact with one another. He even more closely Socrates looks at morality and the values individuals hold most important. One value looked at by Socrates and his colleagues is the principle of justice. Multiple definitions of justice are given and Socrates analyzes the merit of each. As the group defines justice they show how self-interest shapes the progression of their arguments and contributes to the definition of justice.

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.

Justice is a defining factor of human motivation—it can result in the triumph or demise of a person’s actions. Nevertheless, justice is not only the blade that separates good from evil, but it is the adhesive that cements all of humanity together to form an overall gluttonous species. Justice is at the root of everyone’s greatest desires. Though the purpose of one’s justice may vary, it is seen through history of the inevitable—the truth is always revealed. Some people spend their entire lives attempting to expose the lies that suppressed their greatest desires and caused their greatest failures.

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.

“Those who practice justice, do so involuntarily” (Plato 78). In “The Ring of Gyges “by Plato, the author presents the view that people are self-interested creatures who, if they could, would prefer to be unjust towards others and not follow a just life. In this story, a man named Glaucon is the one who is presenting this point and other points. He begins his disposition of his points by presenting the idea that people find it desirable to do to harm to others, that is, they find a sense of pleasure in doing so (Plato 78). With this, Glaucon also presents that humans find a greater displeasure in being victimized by others than the pleasure they find in harming others. With this, man came into an involuntary agreement that we today call “Justice”. Glaucon makes it very clear that this agreement is not made willingly and that man follows this agreement because they are weak. He concludes that a person with the power to carry out misdeeds, would be a fool not to do so (Plato 78). Glaucon begins to tell the story of a magic ring that comes out of

Benefits of justice given by Glaucon and Adeimantus are based on the idea that they are desired based on their consequences. In this sense, many people would place justice as a necessary evil, which allows individuals to avoid a greater evil that would exists without justice. Justice is something that comes from the vulnerability to humans, they are all affected by the injustices of others. As such, people continue to act just because without it, there would be more collective suffering. Rather than being practiced for the sake of being just, it is something produced similar to a social contract that comes out of fear and weakness. Adeimantus adds another benefit of justice in regards to what one can gain which will benefit them in the future. He claims that no one praises justice for being justice, but rather for the rewards that will come from it in current day and in the afterlife. In doing so, they can question Socrates about the benefits of justice, when it does not produce external rewards.

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?”

In Plato’s, “The Republic,” Socrates mediates conversation, as he challenges himself, and those around him to arbitrate the value of justice and conceptualize the significance that it holds for both the individual and the state. Throughout books I to VI, Socrates, Glaucon, and Adameitus constructively develop a sense of justice through argument and the formation of an ideal state. However, this embodiment reaches a deadlock in the middle of book V when Socrates pronounces that everything discussed thus far is nothing but an ideology, unless a philosopher king is manifested.

Examining Justice in the Individual In Book II of The Republic of Plato, the main aspects of justice, both in society and in the individual, are examined in conversations looked at between Socrates and Glaucon. The focus of what they attempt to examine is what incentive do humans have to be just in the first place. The main premise of this question relates to the idea that perhaps, as Glaucon states to Socrates, “the life of the unjust man is, after all, far better than that of the just man.” (36) This begs the question then, if there is no incentive to be a just person in society, and if the rewards of being just don’t match the benefits of being unjust, why would anybody subscribe to this theory of justice?

In this tremendously vibrant work of prose, Socrates comes full circle in his promise to explain why justice is a good in itself. By using the most extreme instance in which wisdom of the soul is necessary, Socrates displays the consequences of leading a life below the divided line. The myth of Er, then, is a fitting end to The Republic, as an answer to a question