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.
I believe that both philosophers have elements of truth in their arguments, however in the essay I intend to show that it is not possible to agree entirely with either party because of the underlying premise of their argument. I shall demonstrate that neither party has a correct view because they base their arguments on examples whose essence is incompatible with the concept of justice, and refute their claims due to the obvious fallacy of arguing two extremes when considering human nature. In the first book of the Republic, Thrasymachus states that justice is not desirable. He describes human behaviour as fundamentally self-interested, and states that justice is ‘an advantage of the stronger’ employed to suppress ‘the weaker’ . He submits the view that injustice is therefore preferable in relation to politics and to common living.
Plato rejects the contractarian reconciliation of morality with individual rationality primarily because the thinks that the contractarian conception assumes that a person's motives for being just are necessarily based her self-interest, while our concept of the just person holds that to be truly just one must value justice for its own sake. The contractarian account is also unacceptable because it has no foorce in the case of the Lydia Shepherd. (3) Finally, Plato holds that we must reject the contractarian account because a better account is available to us, viz., his own account of justice. But to show this Plato must establish each of the following: 1. There really is a difference between perceived self-interest and actual self-interest, that there can be a difference between what one believes to be in one's interest and what really is in one's interest.
Plato’s interpretation of justice as seen in ‘The Republic’ is a vastly different one when compared to what we and even the philosophers of his own time are accustomed to. Plato would say justice is the act of carrying out one’s duties as he is fitted with. Moreover, if one’s duties require one to lie or commit something else that is not traditionally viewed along with justice; that too is considered just by Plato’s accounts in ‘The Republic.’ I believe Plato’s account of justice, and his likely defense against objections are both clear and logical, thus I will endeavor to argue his views as best as I can. Plato’s view of justice ties in with his view of a perfect world. In Plato’s ideal world, the society would be a wise one, wise in understanding that their own position in society is just.
In the Republic, Plato seeks to define justice and, through definition, show that justice is intrinsically worthwhile. In doing so, Plato sets out to explain the principal concept of political justice, and from this obtain a parallel model of individual justice. Essentially, justice is defined as a result of accurate logic or reasoning. However, it is quite important to note that the democratic regime discussed in the Republic is not the same as the known democratic regime of today. The democratic establishment discussed in the Republic is a direct democracy, which, even at that time, proved to be a failure.
Socrates purposefully fails to use a universally applicable proof for shapes to define a square. All shapHis ignorance is used to inspire Meno’s review of the argument and develop a correct definition for excellence. For Meno’s benefit, Socrates contradicts his methods of deduction and proves excellence is divine. Plato employs Socratic irony to inspire a resolution to a problem by facilitating individual thought and input. As a result, Socrates’ ignorance is based on contradiction because contradiction entices review and the development of a correct resolution.
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.
It is clear that the beliefs of the ethical egoist go against Plato's social philosophy because they directly assault the idea of justice altogether―one which Plato supports and spends a lot of time defending. In The Republic, Plato was able to provide an explanation as to the best way to address the problems―political and otherwise―posed by the ethical egoist. Works Cited Plato. The Republic. Book I.
There is a diverse amount of themes that could be compared in Republic by Plato and Leviathan by Hobbes. Through these books the two authors each construct a system in which their ideal state can thrive. Both writers agree that government is necessary for the good of the people, however what that government entails drastically differs. Their images of a utopian society are largely based on their perception of human beings. Seeing as how their views on human nature are quite opposite from the other’s, it is understandable that their political theories have many dissimilarities.
He wants to define justice, and to define it in such a way as to show that justice is worthwhile in and of itself. He meets these two challenges with a single solution: a definition of justice that appeals to human psychology, rather than to perceived behavior. Plato’s strategy in the Republic is to first explicate the primary notion of societal, or political, justice, and then to derive an analogous concept of individual justice. In Books II, III, and IV, Plato identifies political justice as harmony in a structured political body. An ideal society consists of three main classes of people—producers (craftsmen, farmers, artisans, etc.