Socrates Justice

The other side of the coin is the idea of being unjust, Plato describes this as, “meddling and exchange between these classes, there is the greatest harm…and the worst thing one could do to the city is cause injustice” (434c-pg109). The meddling and exchange between classes refers to the idea of not having specialization, consequently this type of behavior is expressed as harmful, because it leaves room for individuals to produce mediocre abilities.

Throughout the dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates, they both try to come up with an understanding of the relationship between piety and justice. Within the discussion, Socrates questions Euthyphro to see if he can define the difference and similarities between justice and piety, and if they interact with each other. Eventually, Euthyphro and Socrates came up with the conclusion that justice is a part of piety. This is the relationship that I agree most with because in my own opinion, I believe that all of the gods and people agree that human beings who commit unjust actions need to be punished for their actions.

At this point Thrasymachus gets angered by Socrates exactness. In his anger he states that injustice is more profitable than justice. He defends this by saying that people condemn injustice for the simple fact that they don't want to suffer from it. This fear of injustice shows that it is more advantageous than injustice. Socrates counters this by looking at the capabilities of an unjust city. He shows that an unjust city could

“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

In Book I, Socrates states that "Injustice... causes civil war, hatred, and fighting among themselves, while justice brings friendship and a

Money makers are said to most prominently display the desiring part of their soul. Socrates is not an ordinary man, as he does not seem content in mastering one skill or becoming an expert on one topic. Instead, Socrates prefers to understand as many topics as possible with as great of an understanding as he can create. For example, Socrates could not focus on creating one city alone, but explored many different types of cities and gathered a general understanding of all cities, until he created one that seemed best to him. Socrates considered a city of sows, and a feverish city before finally committing to the idea of a just city. To be a money maker, Socrates would have to master the first city he thought of, or the first city he was assigned to, rather than exploring a trial and error approach. Socrates would have an issue in obeying authority and having to master a certain subject. Socrates says, “While to produce injustice is to establish a relation of ruling, and being ruled by, one another that is contrary to nature?” (444 d). This is interpreted as Socrates having a nature that contradicts the nature of the ruler. Here, Socrates would have difficulty being ruled over, because his own nature tells him to do something different than what the ruler is demanding from

What is justice? According to Socrates, to be just is what every individual is conditioned to strive for. Those who act unjustly are guided by ignorance and only they themselves believe they are doing good. A core ideal of Socrates was that everyone should do good and avoid wrong. His views on law and justice are shaped around this ideal.

Socrates’ contradicting views are presented when he claims, “Not from money does virtue come, but from virtue comes money and all of the other good things for human beings both privately and publicly” (Apology, 30b). Socrates disputes that fortuna comes from virtue and presents a cause and effect relationship, contrary to the interconnected relationship as presented by Machiavelli. A prince should use philosophical thinking to question and explore many ideas in order to amass success. Just having money and luck, on the other hand, will not lead to more success because the prince is unable to think about how he can execute his rulings. Through his views, he connotes how the ruler cannot start his reign with both fortuna and virtue. This contradicts with Machiavelli’s prince because Socrates disputes the lack of emphasis on fortune.

In response to Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus, Socrates seeks to show that it is always in an individual’s interest to be just, rather than unjust. Thus, one of the most critical problems regarding the Republic is whether Socrates defends justice successfully or not. Socrates offers three arguments in favor of the just life over the unjust life: first, the just man is wise and good, and the unjust man is ignorant and bad; second, injustice produces internal disharmony which prevents effective actions; and lastly, virtue is excellence at a thing’s function and the just person lives a happier life than the unjust person, since he performs the various functions of the human soul well. Socrates is displeased with the argument because a sufficient explanation of justice is essential before reaching a conclusion as to whether or not the just life is better than the unjust life. He is asked to support justice for itself, not for the status that follows. He propositions to look for justice in the city first and then to continue by analogy to discover justice in the individual. This approach will allow for a distinct judgment on the question of whether the just person is happier than the unjust person. Socrates commences by exploring the roots of political life and constructs a hypothetical just city that gratifies only fundamental human necessities. Socrates argues

In Plato’s works Apology and Crito there is an attempt by Socrates to defend himself in court and defend his choice to receive the death penalty when found guilty. Although he makes very valid and strong arguments throughout one can only wonder why such a wise person would choose death over life. The following essay will analyze three quotes from Apology and Crito, find the correlation between them, and reveal any flaws that may exsist inside these arguments made by Socrates.

In the Republic, Socrates takes up the question of whether a just person will be better off than an unjust person. He refutes Thrasymachus’ claim that an unjust person is wise and good and argues that no one in any rule, who, in so far as he is wise and good tries to outdo someone like himself in the same domain. Only an ignorant and bad man will always want to outperform everyone. I shall present Socrates’ argument about justice, as well as, I shall object the argument with the point that in the craft of business, companies should compete to get better overtime. After that, I will challenge the objection, in order to show that businesses are able to improve without competition.

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?”

The first point of what Socrates answers what isn’t justice is that justice isn’t equality. It is not after death of getting revenge that makes justice equal. Socrates uses the example of how when a person is on trial for murder, and how that person sentence is death. The end result will not be justice, because in the end both the criminal and already the innocent will be dead and no equality of justice would have been done at all. Another example is when a person is put to death when they owe taxes. There is no equal justice to killing someone who owes taxes because in the end result, the tax is still not paid off. So this leaves Justice is not paying amends. It is then moved to the question of when is justice is used. Justice is used when

The conflict theory explains that there is always a disparity that exists in the society due to the presence of limited resources as well as the variations in the skills and knowledge. It will always happen that in the society there are the wealthy and elite, the middle-class people and the poor who have the lower status in the society. The children from these social statuses will always have varying education success, employment opportunities and eventually economic success (Zucman, 2014).

On this part of the meaning of justice Socrates offers a completely different view. He contradicted Thrasymachus’ views by stating that what is in the interest of the strong may not be that obvious after all, and that by making mistakes, the justice of the powerful has worked against his interest. Socrates also later offers a view on the definition of justice that states justice is “the right condition of the human soul”.