More handpicked essays just for you.
Reflections on plato ethical theory
Classic and modern understanding of justice
Reflections on plato ethical theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Reflections on plato ethical theory
To give us a closer look at the makeup of different societies, the author describes the four unjust constitutions of the city and man, in Book VIII. There is timocracy, and the honor-driven man who rules that sort of government; there is oligarchy, which is ruled by a man driven by his necessary appetites; there is democracy which is ruled by a man driven by his unnecessary appetites; and there is tyranny, which is ruled by a man driven by his unlawful appetites (223). Each of these constitutions is worse than the last, with tyranny being the worst form of government and the most repulsive kind of man. According to Plato, “We can have a complete consideration of how pure justice is related to pure injustice with respect to the happiness and wretchedness of the men possessing them.” (223). Since the city is considered a living thing and all things considered human eventually fall into disrepair, these four unjust constitutions are not presented as theoretical categorizations, but instead as the inevitable stages that a city will pass through.
In order to make some of these distinctions, the difference between necessary and unnecessary desires is explained. Necessary desires are those we cannot train ourselves to
…show more content…
He explains this by asking the readers to imagine this political tyrant on an island with his family and all his slaves. Without the protection of the law, this man would be at the mercy of all the people he mistreated and those who want revenge for the things he has done. This tyrant is in continual danger of being killed for the crimes he has committed against his subjects. This man also has more power to indulge in his unlawful whims and to sink further into degeneracy. The tyrant, who is also the most unjust man, is the least happy. This is a major reason for Plato to conclude that it is beneficial to be
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 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 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
Socrates evaluates four city constitutions that evolve from aristocracy: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. As a result that these four types of cities exist, four additional types of individuals who inhabit them also exist. Although these city constitutions evolve from aristocracy, Socrates deems aristocracy to be the most efficient, therefore the most just, of the constitutions because the individuals within it are ruled by the rational part of the soul.
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
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.
To understand Plato's arguments concerning the rise of tyrants from democracy, one must first examine how Plato suggests that democracy evolves from oligarchy. Plato sees democracy as a degeneration of oligarchy, something that evolves from a failure to be properly disciplined and restrained in the fulfillment of desires. A democratic person is not necessarily a mindless hedonist, he or she may even be restrained in many regards, but would deny no one the opportunity to be and argue that the mindless hedonist is just as virtuous and honorable as the spendthrift oligarch. Plato explains that a democratic man one who “surrend(ers) rule over himself to whichever desire comes along, as if it were chosen by lot, until it is satisfied; and after that to another, dishonoring none but satisfying al...
Plato views the democratic state as a city “full of freedom and freedom of speech[,]” where its citizens “have the license to do [whatever they] want” and the right to self-determine. Plato however, sees this insatiable desire for freedom at the expense of neglecting everything else as the downfall of democracy. To clarify, a society that is staunchly protective of its equality and freedom will be particularly sensitive towards any oppositions that seem to limit them, to the point where it actively attempts to “avoid [obeying the law and] having any master at all.” Thus, “unless the rulers are very pliable and provide plenty of that freedom, they are punished by the city and accused of being oligarchs.” Since those in power fear the accusations of those being ruled, they become docile and submissive. On the other hand, those who are ruled are encouraged by their rulers’ meekness and, convinced of their inherent right to freedom, begin to behave as their own rulers. Thus, this blind chase for unconditional freedom will propagate disorder across the society, and eventually cause the people to see “anarchy [as] freedom, extravagance [as] magnificence, and shamelessness [as]
In Plato’s republic, a philosophical account on the kallipolis (the beautiful city) is built on the perspective of Socrates and his discussion between his companions. In the republic, the city in which ones live in depends on the soul and the character of the city one lives in. In this paper the character of human nature and politics will be discussed in how a city is ought to be by the influence of human nature and politics. Firstly, the influence of human nature on politics will be looked at, for example according to Plato on behalf of Socrates; he claims that a just soul creates a just society, where it is human nature to be just, that influences in creating a just political system. Secondly, politics influences human nature, where in the republic when the discussion of guardians starts out between Socrates and the companions, there is political thought discussed between them, where Socrates wants to create the perfect guardians through specific training in all types of skills instituted to creating a perfect protector. Lastly, human nature is human soul if the soul is just the city is going to be just. It is the human nature which has created communities without any political thought put in place; it political thought that forms rules and laws. Thus, human nature is part of the individual understanding of its society that creates an understanding of how one ought to be, which in turns creates rules and laws that is essentially viewed as politics.
Plato had divided different variations of ruling into four corrupt souls. Timarchic men want to have honor and victory but end up getting caught up striving for wealth. An oligarchic man just uses wealth and power to over see the city using all means necessary to continue his happiness. The democratic man see's everything as equal and is ok with living with equal desires. Democracy, a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." Finally the tyrannical man who uses his in just lifestyle to crash and burn the city he's ruling into the ground. These are all the men discussed through out the Republic written by Plato (Plato, ppt7).
“In the Republic” the reader gets a sense of what Plato felt a society should be and how it should
Political society today, has taken many lessons from Plato and Aristotle’s political ideas. As was the case in Ancient Greece, there are many different political ideologies and regimes that will may serve the purpose for one society, but in another, could cause utter chaos. Aristotle attributed the need for there being a number of political regimes due to the fact that there are “many parts to a city.” (4.3.1) The many parts to a city that he was referring to, simply enforces the necessity of having different forms of office for each of these parts. Not every method will work for each society. Aristotle’s concepts of political regimes have deeply rooted itself in society today. In order to understand the concepts of regime as suggested by Aristotle, this paper will consider the three different types; royalty, aristocracy, and constitutional government, as well as each of their deviations.
...ders are unable to adequately rule their people. It is evident to me that a tyrant need not be a particularly evil or dangerous leader, but merely one who cares more about his own power and honor than the people he leads, who lets his pride and greed overwhelm his responsibilities to the city or society he has been entrusted with. Agamemnon never tortured or killed his own men, but his judgment in protecting his men was compromised by his desire to gain honor in the sight of others. Tyranny can be overwhelming or subtle, but the very hint of its existence is sure to cause disharmony in the government, leading to the unjust, and thus unhappy society that Plato described.
The Republic is an examination of the "Good Life"; the harmony reached by applying pure reason and justice. The ideas and arguments of Plato center on the social settings of an ideal republic - those that lead each person to the most perfect possible life for him. Socrates was Plato's early mentor in real life. As a tribute to his teacher, Plato uses Socrates in several of his works and dialogues. Socrates moderates the discussion throughout, as Plato's mouthpiece. Through Socrates' powerful and brilliant questions and explanations on a series of topics, the reader comes to understand what Plato's model society would look like. The basic plan of the Republic is to draw an analogy between the operation of society as a whole and the life of any individual human being. In this paper I will present Plato’s argument that the soul is divides into three parts. I will examine what these parts are, and I will also explain his arguments behind this conclusion. Finally, I will describe how Plato relates the three parts of the soul to a city the different social classes within that city.
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil. This is where Plato’s argument that justice is in one’s self-interest is disturbed. This paper will discuss the idea that justice is not in one’s self-interest, and thus does not pay.