Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual. However, Plato examines the justice system from the perfect society and Aeschylus starts at the curse on the House of Atreus and the blood spilled within the family of Agamemnon.
Plato begins his argument in The Republic
…show more content…
They have a stronger ability to correct mistakes and justify wrong doings. Is it, conversely, any different to live justly and morally or unjustly and immorally? Plato writes, “Which is the more profitable, to be just and act justly and practice virtue, whether seen or unseen of gods and men, or to be unjust and act unjustly, if only unpunished and unreformed?” (Plato, Republic, Moodle Document). This question poses questions within itself. For instance, the idea of an act going unseen by the gods seems trivial and impossible. To my knowledge, actions in Ancient Greece were done to honor, defend, or in fear of the gods. Does one not go to the gods for answers and guidance? If so why is Socrates and others put on trial for their actions and …show more content…
The Chorus presents the facts of the Trojan War. I agree with the Chorus in the fact that I do not think the Trojan War was a just war. Upon further research and insight into the book, I could not find any reason other than the capture of Helen for the war’s occurrence. Ten years of fighting and misery over a girl. I think that because of actions on the part of the Trojans and other figures the war might have been just but the results of the war were to catastrophic. There is a fine line between justice and
In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.
A twenty-first century reading of the Iliad and the Odyssey will highlight a seeming lack of justice: hundreds of men die because of an adulteress, the most honorable characters are killed, the cowards survive, and everyone eventually goes to hell. Due to the difference in the time period, culture, prominent religions and values, the modern idea of justice is much different than that of Greece around 750 B.C. The idea of justice in Virgil’s the Aeneid is easier for us to recognize. As in our own culture, “justice” in the epic is based on a system of punishment for wrongs and rewards for honorable acts. Time and time again, Virgil provides his readers with examples of justice in the lives of his characters. Interestingly, the meaning of justice in the Aeneid transforms when applied to Fate and the actions of the gods. Unlike our modern (American) idea of blind, immutable Justice, the meanings and effects of justice shift, depending on whether its subject is mortal or immortal.
In Aeschylus' trilogy, the Greeks' justice system went through a transformation from old to new ways. In the beginning of the trilogy, the characters settle their matters, both personal and professional, with vengeance. Vengeance is when someone is harmed or killed, and either the victim, or someone close to them takes revenge on the criminal. This matter is proven in the trilogy numerous times. For example, Clytemnestra murders Agamemnon as revenge for his sacrifice of their daughter Iphigeneia. Along those same lines, in the second part of the trilogy, Choephoroe, Orestes, who is Agamemnon son, murders Clytemnestra and Aegisthus. He does this in order to gain revenge on them for killing his father. It was by this way that people would deal with conflict, and it was thought to be not only a justice system, but also a honorable and fair. In fact, one of the principal purposes of the first play of the trilogy is to force us to recognize that justice based on revenge creates special difficulties, which in turn cannot be solved. It does not solve the problems that it is meant to, but only causes more problems that are even larger. As the third and last part of the trilogy begins, the system begins to evolve and change from vengeance to genuine justice. Instead of getting revenge on Orestes and killing him, they decide to put him on trial and have a jury decide whether or not he sho...
Plato’s Republic focuses on one particular question: is it better to be just or unjust? Thrasymachus introduces this question in book I by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests. Therefore, he claims that justice is “stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice” (Plato, Republic 344c). Plato begins to argue that injustice is never more profitable to a person than justice and Thrasymachus withdraws from the argument, granting Plato’s response. Glaucon, however, is not satisfied and proposes a challenge to Plato to prove that justice is intrinsically valuable and that living a just life is always superior. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge.
This leads to Socrates point that considering that the gods have different opinions as to what things are just and good that means they must approve of different things. Furthermore, as indicated by Euthyphro's definition of piety, those things would be viewed as both holy and unholy, since they are approved by a few of the gods and objected by different gods. Nonetheless, in Euthyphro's eyes he believes that most likely every one of the gods would concede on the fact that a man who murders somebody unjustifiably ought to have consequences. Socrates makes the point that the question doesn't emerge with respect to whether someone who has done something wrong ought to be punished, but as to whether the individual has in actuality acted
In Plato’s Apology it seems that overall Socrates did an effective job using the 3 acts of the mind. The three acts of the mind are: Understanding, Judgment, and Reasoning. These acts are stragically used to rebut the charges made against him during trial. The two charges that are formed against Socrates are corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods. The first act of the mind that we will be looking at is, understanding. The question that needs to be asked is what does corruption mean? The accuser believe that Socrates in corrupting the minds of the children by introducing new concepts. Socrates is trying to teach and involve the minds of the youth by getting them to ask question. It is very important that people are always asking questions about why things are. The next question that needs to be address is what does not believe in the gods mean? Socrates believes in God but that is one god that rules the world, not multiple gods who together rule. They are mad that he has “created” his own god.
Aeschylus provides an alternative method of justice that is both more humane and reasonable. The innovative method Aeschylus describes outshines Homer's more ancient method of justice by a considerable margin. The audience sees that the best way to combat injustice is not with hateful instincts, but rather with reason and consideration.
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.
Socrates, in his conviction from the Athenian jury, was both innocent and guilty as charged. In Plato’s Five Dialogues, accounts of events ranging from just prior to Socrates’ entry into the courthouse up until his mouthful of hemlock, both points are represented. Socrates’ in dealing with moral law was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of by Meletus. Socrates was only guilty as charged because his peers had concluded him as such. The laws didn’t find Socrates guilty; Socrates was guilty because his jurors enforced the laws. The law couldn’t enforce itself. Socrates was accused of corrupting Athens’ youth, not believing in the gods of the city and creating his own gods. In the Euthyphro, Socrates defends himself against the blasphemous charges outside the courthouse to a priest Euthyphro. Socrates looks to the priest to tell him what exactly is pious so that he may educate himself as to why he would be perceived as impious. Found in the Apology, another of Plato’s Five Dialogues, Socrates aims to defend his principles to the five hundred and one person jury. Finally, the Crito, an account of Socrates’ final discussion with his good friend Crito, Socrates is offered an opportunity to escape the prison and his death sentence. As is known, Socrates rejected the suggestion. It is in the Euthyphro and the Apology that it can be deduced that Socrates is not guilty as charged, he had done nothing wrong and he properly defended himself. However, in the Crito, it is shown that Socrates is guilty only in the interpretation and enforcement of Athens’ laws through the court system and its jurors. Socrates’ accusations of being blasphemous are also seen as being treasonous.
Hourani, George. Thrasymachus' Definition of Justice in Plato's Republic. 2. 7. Focus Publishing, 1962. eBook. .
Many people would blatantly state that the importance of the gods in Greek society derives from the fact that Gods in any society are usually used to explain phenomenon that people cannot logically comprehend, but in ancient Greece gods were actually entities that took part in the workings of society itself. Even simple aspects of day-to-day life such as sex and disputes between mortals were supposedly influenced by godly workings. Unlike modern religions such as Catholicism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, where an omnipotent force supposedly controls the workings of the world, a hierarchy of Gods characterized religion in ancient Greece. Working as one big family, which they actually were, each one of the Greek gods governed a certain aspect of the world in a way that usually reflected their own humanlike personalities. These unique personalities also contained many human flaws such as envy and greed, and were where the Greek God’s importance lay. Greek religion was more concentrated on the way an individual dealt with situations that popped up in the world around him than on understanding the world itself. In other words the Greeks were more interested in the workings of the mind than in the workings of the environment around them.
The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those views about justice are to be overcome.
Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.
Within two classical works of philosophical literature, notions of justice are presented plainly. Plato’s The Republic and Sophocles’ Antigone both address elements of death, tyranny and immorality, morality, and societal roles. These topics are important elements when addressing justice, whether in the societal representation or personal representation.
For Plato’s thesis – justice pays – to be validated, he has to prove two things, the first being that justice is inherently good. In