Justice in The Republic by Plato
In Plato's The Republic, justice is depicted as a major part in a perfect society. Justice is said to breed a good society, whereas injustice will breed a bad one. Plato defines justice in dialogue as "keeping what is properly one's own and doing one's own job." (Pg. 146) Under the rules set for this perfect society, people are to practice the one profession at which they perform best. This profession also corresponds to a certain social class. Under no circumstances can one change this profession. Along with a set occupation, Plato has also determined that the perfect community would regulate what children (and the community) are taught, and to what the children will be exposed.
In Plato's perfect society, regulating the stories, songs, poems, and actions told to children is meant to enforce the standard of how people should act, think, and believe. Plato states that his "first business is to supervise the production of stories, and choose only those we think suitable, and reject the rest." (Pg.72) This theory seems to have certain advantag...
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.
In review of both Plato and Mill’s arguments for and against censorship, I come to my conclusion that holds true to Mill. I could not have said it any better than Mill’s two main arguments against censorship. Humans make mistakes and making mistakes is entirely unavoidable because we are not perfect. Therefore, without being perfect, how can a human, like Plato, decide the perfect way to form a society? Plato makes sense in that he does not care about happiness he only cares about an ideal state with little or no issues. I understand that was his goal in forming the Republic but as I see it Plato leaves no room for growth. In his society, everything will be the same for generations and generations. His society is very well structured and extremely thought out but it essentially must be in order to thrive for many years because the workers only work, the guardians only guard, and the rulers only rule. Only what the rulers do, say, or think is important and they too are just as human as those they lead. My question to Plato is simply why? Why are the rulers, the philosophers, the ones ...
In Plato’s Republic Book IV, Socrates sets out to convince Glaucon that a person acts with three different parts of the soul, rather than with the soul as a whole. He does this by presenting Glaucon with a variety of situations in which parts of the soul may conflict with one another, and therefore not acting together. Socrates describes the three parts of the soul as the rational part, or that which makes decisions, the appetitive part, or that which desires, and the spirited part, or that which gets angry (436a).
In book four of Plato's “The Republic” Socrates defines justice in the individual as analogous to justice in the state. I will explain Socrates' definition of justice in the individual, and then show that Socrates cannot certify that his definition of justice is correct, without asking further questions about justice. I will argue that if we act according to this definition of justice, then we do not know when we are acting just. Since neither the meaning of justice, nor the meaning of good judgement, is contained in the definition, then one can act unjustly while obeying to the definition of justice. If one can act unjustly while obeying this definition, then Socrates' definition of justice is uncertifiable.
In Plato’s Republic, justice and the soul are examined in the views of the multiple characters as well as the Republic’s chief character, Socrates. As the arguments progress through the Republic, the effect of justice on the soul is analyzed, as the question of whether or not the unjust soul is happier than the just soul. Also, Plato’s theories of justice in the man, the state, and the philosopher king are clearly linked to the cardinal virtues, as Plato describes the structure of the ideal society and developing harmony between the social classes. Therefore, the statement “justice is the art which gives to each man what is good for his soul” has to be examined through the definitions of justice given in the Republic and the idea of the good
Plato's Book I of The Republics presents three fundamental views on justice which are exemplified in Thucydides' On Justice, Power and Human Nature. Justice is illustrated as speaking the paying one's debts, helping one's friends and harming one's enemies, and the advantage of the stronger.
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.
Plato (2007) says, “Well, musicians will hardly use their skill to make their pupils unmusical, or riding master make their pupils bad horsemen then will just men use their justice to make others unjust?”(335c p.13). For example, a person who goes out and steals a someone’s car they would be considered unjust because they feel they need and want to have something of someone else’s. Another example is that, if a doctor who simply does not care about treating their patients for a medical issue that happens, they are called unjust as well, because they are purposely ignoring their proper job title as a doctor. Lastly, a hair stylist can act unjustly because if she or he refuses to take a customer that appropriately belong to them. People who are unjust do not realize their positions based on their roles in life, or they treat someone worse than they deserve to be treated. In comparison, an unjust society does not succeed in carrying out the meaning of what a society should be. It is evident that it is a better to be just and worse to be unjust. In book IV, of The Republic, Socrates proposes that each individual person would be happy by performing in the workforce that suits their role best. The idea of going back to specialization were performing a task best is based
Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote “One man’s justice is another’s injustice.” This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient to Socrates also. Eventually, the two agree “that it is never just to harm anyone” (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a common good, for harming people according to Socrates, only makes them “worse with respect to human virtue” (Republic 335 C). Polemarchus also allows for the possibility of common good through his insistence on helping friends. To Polemarchus nothing is more important than his circle of friends, and through their benefit he benefits, what makes them happy pleases him.
In Book II of Plato’s Republic, Glaucon seeks to define what justice is and whether it could truly be considered an end in itself. He starts by asserting that there are three types of good. First there are goods that we choose out pure enjoyment and pleasure, these goods have no negative after effects. Second are the goods that are valued for what they are in and of themselves not just the good that comes from them. Thirdly there are the goods that an individual will only pursue because of what they believe they will acquire, not for what they are themselves.(36) Glaucon believes that justice should be placed in the second tier of goods where everything of intrinsic value is also placed. However he goes on to explain that the majority of people
Plato and Aristotle were both very influential men of there time bringing vast knowledge to the world. I honestly believe that Democracy does a lot of good but it definitely has some common side effects. Out of all of Plato's significant ideas, his best was the idea of democracy opening political decisions to the majority who cannot think on behalf of the community. Aristotle on the other hand is very optimistic when it comes to democracy so it becomes a rather interesting compare and contrast between these to men.
In Plato’s Republic, Glaucon is introduced to the reader as a man who loves honor, sex, and luxury. As The Republic progresses through books and Socrates’ arguments of how and why these flaws make the soul unhappy began to piece together, Glaucon relates some of these cases to his own life, and begins to see how Socrates’ line of reasoning makes more sense than his own. Once Glaucon comes to this realization, he embarks on a path of change on his outlook of what happiness is, and this change is evidenced by the way he responds during he and Socrates’ discourse.
Socrates once said “the just man is the much happier than the unjust, but a just man 's life is only pleasant”. Throughout his lifetime Socrates searched for the type of individual who lives the happiest. In eighth book of Plato’s republic Socrates describes five different types of individuals, in which he believes all humans fall under at least once. As a philosopher he also believed that humans would attain happiness once they have found their souls, although he also claims that only philosophers can find their souls. Dr. Joe Freeman provided a lecture discussing democracy in the United States related to the ideologies of Socrates. In the lecture Dr. Freeman provided a pyramid of how Socrates rated humans based on his categories, justice
In the end, justice does not pay for any level of person in an ideal city. Plato must prove early on that justice is inherently good, and just actions are inherently good. The first point is dismissed for the sake of argument, and the second is uncertain due to the questions the myth of Gyges surfaces. The prime example of doing what is just is a citizen’s performance of his work within the city, thus making it just for the philosophers to rule. Despite ruling being a just action, ruling is an intrinsic evil, and thus does not pay the philosophers. This is more clearly defined looking at the producer’s work in the city. In the essential case of performing one’s job, justice does not pay the
In order to understand how unity and harmony tie the ideal state together, one must first understand the coloration of unity with justice. Simply defined justice, according to Plato, is specialization. Each person doing their own craft is what justice entails. However, this definition of justice leads to something larger within the individual and the state. According to Plato, "... we must compel these Guardians and Auxiliaries of ours to second our efforts; and they, and all the rest with them, must be induced to make themselves perfect masters each of his own craft. In that way, as a community grows into a well ordered whole, the several classes may be allowed such measure of happiness as their nature will compass" (P, p. 111). The theory of justice as specialization leads to the happiness of the whole.