Republic by Plato War in Relation to Justice, Injustice, and the Just City

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 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.

On the first point of violence, Socrates sees no justice in its practice. In conversation with Crito, they establish that doing any person an injustice is wrong. They also establish that injustice is equated to the infliction of injury. Thus, in true Socratic logic, “one ought not to return an injustice or an injury to any person, whatever the provocation” (Crito, 88c). Socrates is

In Book II-IV of Plato’s Republic, Socrates* creates an ideal polis, and in doing so, will find justice in the soul. The two foundational principles of the city that Socrates creates, The City of Pigs** as Glaucon calls it, that eventually grows into the ideal city are self-sufficiency and one person-one art, referred to today as specialization. Due to the fact that individual people are not self-sufficient*, that is they are not able to survive on their own without the help of other people, the citizens of the city must take up a profession and utilize trade. Socrates believes in one person-one art*, the idea that each individual should only practice the craft that they are most naturally suited to do. Socrates considers war to be its own

In The Republic Book IV, pp. 130e-136d, Socrates sets out to prove that societal justice is analogous to individual justice. In order to substantiate the analogy, Socrates compares the individual and the city. As he previously defined, justice in the city involves the power relationships between the different parts of the city, namely the guardians, the auxiliaries, and the producers.

Plato creates a seemingly invincible philosopher in The Republic. Socrates is able to refute all arguments presented before him with ease. The discussion on justice in Book I of The Republic is one such example. Socrates successfully refutes each different view of justice presented by Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus. Socrates has not given us a definitive definition of justice, nor has he refuted all views of justice, but as far as we are concerned in Book I, he is able to break down the arguments of his companions.

In Ancient Greece, tensions were always high as city-states competed for resources and territories, which led to constant battles between city-states in an attempt to steal resources or territories. There are also periods where city-states banded together to fight a common enemy, like the Persians, the Trojans, or other city-states. This means that warfare was an integral part of life in ancient greece. This meant that warfare frequently appeared in classic greek literature, such as the Iliad and Ajax, although different authors have different interpretations about warfare which is shown through their work of literature, with the Iliad having warfare as a glorified battle, while Ajax is about an uncompromising hero who turned mad which driven him to commit suicide.

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.

The component of specialization within the city-soul analogy, that of which classifies the working class as the most inferior in comparison to the ruling and guardians classes, and must succumb to the authority of the latter, raises questions to possible alternate purposes of the analogy. Perhaps, along with attempting to simply define the nature of justice, this analogy also attempts to pacify the portion of the city population deemed as appetitive and perhaps threatening, possibly to strengthen the political position of the philosopher-kings, a political class Plato was most likely apart of. Although Socrates is quite harsh in his definition of the working class and is straightforward in his requirement for it to succumb to the authority of its superiors, he provides a justification for the workers that allows the class to view their circumstance as inevitable or ‘natural’, thus not worth fighting against. Bernard Williams brilliantly words this view in his article ‘The Analogy of City and Soul in Plato’s Republic”:

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?”

In the discussion of what is and is not just, Socrates first forms the opinion that justice is something

At first, Socrates is hesitant to respond to the challenge of Glaucon. After some time, Socrates reciprocates to Glaucon’s argument. He states that there are two kinds of justice: political justice, and

It is argued that one of the most important part of the book is when Socrates tries to define justice and find it in his artificially established city therefore I chose to critically analyze the passage from Book IV. Before starting to assess the argument he

In book 4, Plato attempts to find a way to link a just city and a just human. He strongly thinks that the best way to explain how just a human is, is by how just his/her city is. When Socrates is comparing humans to the city it