Socrates 's View Of Justice

Socrates was a Western Ancient Athenian Greek philosopher who lived from 469 BCE until his death in 399 BCE. He was a student to another philosopher, Sophists, Socrates was different from most Greek philosophers he wanted to get at the truth and find out how one can truly be ‘good’ and moral in life. “To Socrates the soul is identified with the mind; it is the seat of reason and capable of finding the ethical truths, which will restore meaning and value of life” (ADD IN-TEXT CITATION SEMINAR). We continue to use many of Socrates teachings today, such as, ‘The Socratic method’, which is known as asking a question and within these questions you lead it to the answer you wanted to hear, many uses this as a teaching technique and is shown to be highly effective. A great number of Athenians looked up to Socrates and considered him the wise man of Athens, he had many followers whom would ask questions and seek answers. As popularity and following of Socrates grew so did accusations. The charges laid on Socrates by the Athenians were unjust and therefore his death was highly wrong in the eyes of true democracy that Athens was apparently known for. In this paper, I will discuss how Socrates was wrongfully convicted for the corruption of the youth despite having many young followers, introducing new Gods while still being considered an Atheist, and the main reason he was seen as a threat to Athens was that he brought change to the city.

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.

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

Plato’s Republic focuses majorly on the search to find justice, but also gives a lot of attention to education and how the quality of education dictates how just a person and a society will become. Socrates spends time creating the Kallipolis in order to disprove Thrasymacus’ claim that justice is the advantage of the stronger. However, through the methodology used by Socrates to educate the citizens of the Kallipolis, he supports the claim Thrasymacus makes.

The portrayal of Socrates, through the book “the trial and death of Socrates” is one that has created a fairly controversial character in Western history. In many ways, Socrates changed the idea of common philosophy in ancient Greece; he transformed their view on philosophy from a study of why the way things are, into a consideration man. Specifically, he analyzed the virtue and health of the human soul. Along side commending Socrates for his strong beliefs, and having the courage to stand by those convictions, Socrates can be commended for many other desirable characteristics. Some of those can include being the first martyr to die for his philosophical beliefs and having the courage to challenge indoctrinated cultural norms is part of

The question of why Socrates was executed and if he deserved the charges put against him has been asked by historians for centuries.

In Plato's, The Apology of Socrates, Socrates was accused and on trial for two charges: that he had corrupted the youth of Athens with his teachings, and, that he advocated the worship of false gods. Socrates taught his students to question everything in a thirst for knowledge. Thus, many politicians were looked at as hypocrites. Because of this, many politicians feared Socrates and wanted Socrates away from Athens. Socrates tried to defend himself against the charges by addressing each accusation. He classified the accusations into two categories, recent and ancient. The recent being the actual accusations and the ancient being the rumors that had circled Athens for years about how Socrates was a man of evil and a man who makes the worse

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

Since Dirk chooses freely to stay in Illinois, he makes an implicit agreement to obey the laws of Illinois. Furthermore, if he has a qualm with any of the laws of Illinois, he has the freedom to leave whenever he wants to. The issue with his actions arise from the fact that he breaks the laws of the state by purchasing and smoking marijuana. Furthermore, even if he is not harming anyone with his actions, his actions are even further unjustifiable because he could move to Holland where it is perfectly legal to purchase and smoke marijuana. Ultimately, Socrates would argue that Dirk has violated the implicit agreement Dirk has with the state and his actions, although seemingly harmless, are unjustifiable.

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)?

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.

In the Socratic dialogue, The Republic, written by the Greek philosopher Plato, the dialogue consists of Socrates describing a hypothetical city-state where a philosopher rules and all is just. In this piece, Plato expresses the importance of knowledge in society and in an individual man. The author uses an allegory to explain how all members of society are educated. Socrates discusses that education and knowledge are the only way one can truly escape the confinement of life. Finally, Socrates elucidates the fact that wisdom is not just an added perk of life but an essential part of life.

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