Socrates Justice

In Plato’s The Republic, there are several accounts of justice that are presented throughout the dialogue, especially in Book I. One of these accounts is presented by Socrates, in which he believes that justice is not harming anyone under any circumstances. Socrates first presents this argument when he questions if it is just to treat anyone badly (335b). Polemarchus, based on his account of justice – in which justice is treating friends well and harming enemies (332d) – believes that it is okay to hurt people (335b). Socrates then brings up examples of what happens when a horse, dog, and person are treated poorly (335b-c). In all these cases, Socrates points out that it worsens them. Afterwards, when taking into account that justice is a “human excellence,” (335c) Socrates says that “members of the human race who are treated badly must necessarily become more unjust. Therefore, based on that reasoning, Socrates presents a fundamentally valid argument. In theory, Socrates’s claim that it is not just to treat anyone badly under any circumstances is sound because not one person or creature deserves bad treatment, no matter the past unjust actions or decisions that person/creature has done in the past. However, it is difficult to put it into practice because of emotion. To defend this argument made by Socrates, I will go more in depth about two points that were brought about him: If it really is just

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.

“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

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.

A man facing an unjust execution is presented with another option: escape from prison and flee to another providence. Most men would eagerly take this chance to prolong their lives and continue their journey on earth. Most men would do anything to get revenge for the wrong that has been done to them. However, most men are not like Socrates. Socrates did not plead his case by eliciting pity from the jury for an old man and his poor family. He did not beg for a different sentence that would allow him to live. Instead, he let the jury come to its own conclusion while acting with virtue and integrity. He held fast to his principles by remaining in prison to face his execution because that is how a good and just person would behave. Socrates’ decision not to escape in Crito is consistent with his principle that the good and just person never does harm to a large extent because accepting his verdict allows him to reinforce the sanctity of law and to set a prime example for his peers.

The Innocence of Socrates Socrates, an Athenian philosopher, is being accused of corrupting youth, disrespecting the gods, and undermining democracy. One might ask, ‘Why these charges?’ but Socrates is not guilty. Why would a full time philosopher who only asks questions have these accusations? Socrates is a very wise man and he does not deserve the charges that he is being accused of.

Socrates moves on to other activities that are useful in peaceful times like farming to get produce, and shoemaking for shoes. Socrates dicusees about what is justice and using it in peaceful times? Polymarchus states getting benefits in busimeses. Socrates asks Polemarchus who would he do a partnership with

Was There Justice in Socrates Trial? The question of whether there was justice in Socrates trial is a question that relies on the new democracy in Athens. Webster’s dictionary defines justice as, “the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals.” In many ways Socrates beliefs and his love to teach lead to his death.

In the cave allegory, a man is bound in a cave, which represents misunderstanding, and facing a wall his entire life with a fire burning behind him. From this fire, he sees shadows and hears people passing by, so he believes people are two dimensional beings, this is known as perception. This shows that knowledge gained through the senses is based on opinion. Only the enlightened ones will break free from the restraints and turn around to see what the shadows really are. These people are called “philosopher kings.”

What is justice? In Plato’s Republic, this question is asked between Socrates and other conversationalists. In the beginning of this work, many different definitions of justice are debated. However, to provide clarity, Socrates proposes that, instead of discussing what justice is, they should apply the term holistically and try to imagine justice in an “ideal city.” From this, the city of Kallipolis was created.

Premise 1: To harm something, you are worsening that person or thing’s superiority Premise 2: “Men who are harmed necessarily become more unjust” (Socrates 335d) Premise 3: It is never in the power of a just man to bring about unjustness by harming someone Therefore, a just person doesn’t harm 1. Determine whether the premises really support the conclusion: does the conclusion logically follow? Is the argument complete, or are there parts missing (for instance: missing evidence)?

Throughout Socrates’ defense speech in Plato’s Apology of Socrates, he argues that any man of worth thinks of the justice of his actions. Justice, or the lack of it, plays a role both in Apology of Socrates and in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. In both texts, justice and power do not go together all the time, with instances of the men in power not considering the justice of their actions. In the Apology of Socrates, Socrates stands trial for crimes of corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods of the city.

The next premise we are given by Socrates is that our obligation to follow the rules of our country stems from our consent expressed in our continuous residence in our country after we have been made aware of the entirety of the laws. If one did not wish to continue their residence in country, the Laws did not restrict them from leaving. The consent is not something explicitly given in most cases, but we give our consent through our actions. By not attempting to change our dwelling, we are giving our permission to be ruled. We were not tricked into giving our consent. We made a choice when we remained in the country by which we agreed to follow the Laws and to receive the benefits provided by such a relationship. By remaining, we receive an

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.