Socrates 's Theory Of Justice

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 states that all goods can be divided into three classes: things that we desire for their consequences; goods that we desire for their own sake and things we desire both for their own sake and for their beneficial consequences. Socrates believes that justice is in the latter group. Glaucon asks Socrates to prove justice is in the last group and begins defending unjust actions in the strongest way possible (Plato, 2008).

Answer: For Socrates, justice in the individual is harmony among the three principles of the soul, achieved by rationality, or reason ‹the wisest faculty (in terms of the State, the guardians).

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.

Book II of The Republic by Plato showcases the two very different views of Socrates and Glaucon in regards to the account of nature and origin of justice. Socrates and Glaucon discuss the theory presented by Glaucon that states that injustice is something that is intrinsically desired by all humans. Glaucon presents this argument to Socrates in order to understand and defend justice for its own sake. Glaucon seeks reassurance from Socrates that justice is not just only good for the positive consequences that it produces, so he asks Socrates to explain that justice is desirable for its own sake and, additionally, the consequences that it provides. In the defense of justice, Socrates begins to explain that justice is a virtue that needs to be found in the individual as well as the state. Socrates believes that true happiness can only exist with a true set of virtues that are justice and respectable morals. Socrates’ assumption is on the fact that a man committing unjust actions will never be able to have complete satisfaction with his life if he has achieved everything through unjust actions because he cannot fully claim his accomplishments. Through examination of the assumptions of both arguments presented, Glaucon’s opinion on justice is superior to the views of Socrates. Glaucon’s presumptuous claim that humans are innately greedy is able to provide an understanding that justice is only a social contract for the weaker people of society by handicapping the strength of the

In those interactions, Socrates would disintegrate his opponent’s arguments based on obvious loop holes and convenient counterarguments. When finally faced with an opportunity to provide his own account of the definition of Justice, Socrates trumps his opponents by providing an explanation of Justice that not only satisfies personal desire but also societal desire. In Socrates’ designed utopia, Justice is the ultimate form of good. However, I believe that his perception of Justice is incomplete, because Plato lacks a complete understanding of how synchrony between human capability and human desire are not always human realities.

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 the Greek society, there was enough wine and spirits for Socrates and his buddies to philosophize on the world around them, beginning the conversation of what is just and not. Ideas transform throughout the conversations of Socrates, Adeimantus, and Glaucon in the Republic forming what justice is in the opinion of Socrates. This opinion, the city in speech, is challenged by Adeimantus and Glaucon but Socrates eloquently responds to their challenges. Socrates’ answers with his city of speech are effective against the challenges of Adeimantus and Glaucon because every human has a soul with decency that is almost impossible to deny.

While voicing these views of justice I believe Socrates remains consistent in his views that the law must be upheld. Socrates believes you must challenge the law if they do not agree with your morals. While also admitting that if you fail to obey the laws it is a greater justice carrying out your sentence honorably than trying to avoid it. Socrates considers holding his morals as laws which in turn keep his views and justice of the laws consistent throughout the dialogues. Socrates begins by admitting he does not participate in the political sides of the law.

Glaucon attempted to prove that injustice is preferable to justice. At first, Glacon agreed with Socrates that justice is a good thing, but implored on the nature of its goodness? He listed three types of “good”; that which is good for its own sake (such as playing games), that which is good is good in itself and has useful consequences (such as reading), and that which is painful but has good consequences (such as surgery). Socrates replied that justice "belongs in the fairest class, that which a man who is to be happy must love both for its own sake and for the results." (45d) Glaucon then reaffirmed Thrasymachus’s position that unjust people lead a better life than just people. He started that being just is

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

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

Socrates proves that justice brings unity to any group of people, because it allows them to trust and rely on one another. The discussion of justice is continued in the beginning of Book II. Glaucon enters the conversation and he divides all things into three categories: 1) Those that are pleasurable for themselves and their results, 2) Those that bring good results, but with difficulty, and 3) Those that bring no results, but are pleasurable. Glacon then asks Socrates which category justice falls within. He replies by placing it in the first category. "I myself put it among the finest goods, as something to be valued by anyone who is going to be blessed with happiness, both because of itself and what it comes from" (Republic, Book II 358a). Glaucon claims that the general view of justice lies in the second category, the mean between two extremes. Glaucon defends his argument by using the example of the "Ring of Gyes," a magical ring that turns its wearer invisible. He continues to argue that if humans were given the opportunity to be unjust without getting caught or without suffering any punishment or loss of good reputation, they would naturally choose a life of injustice, in order to maximize their own interests. Now the issue at hand is to prove whether it is more beneficial to lead a just or unjust life. In an attempt to provide a satisfactory definition of justice, Socrates tries to make an analogy between the

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”.