Gorgias, Socrates, and Justice
When a person’s back is against the wall and the stakes are the highest, how should they handle the pressure? When the lines between right and wrong become so blurred, how is one to know what is the ethical choice in the matter? Imagine being accused of first degree murder, a crime in which you did not commit. However, the evidence against you is stacked so high, it seems you do not have a chance. Your lawyer says he could have you acquitted, but in order to do so he must engage in some unethical courtroom tricks. So with your life on the line, what is the right thing to do? Do you keep the lawyer or should you stand by the truth?
I believe the nice thing for everyone to say is that they would stand by the truth. That would be if we, as a society, could really believe that the truth always wins out. However, realistically we know that bad things happen to good people and not always does good triumph over evil. I know that for myself I honestly think that being trapped like that, I would stick with the lawyer. For me being in that situation, I would be too scared to take the chance that the lawyer with the good, honest tactics could get me off. I would be too scared to not go with what seems to be a good thing. My attitude would probably be that since I am being falsely accused in the first place, then it would be fine to use whatever means necessary to have me acquitted.
In this situation, I believe that Gorgias would have the same opinion as I would. Gorgias would have rather stayed with the same lawyer, because he would have more belief in the power of oratory. He believed that through oratory anyone or anything could be convinced even though that person might not be a professional on the subject he was expounding on. Through oratory, Gorgias believed that a person gains his personal freedom. In a courtroom, oratory could be used to convince the jury system of anything. Oratory, Gorgias believed, had the total power to persuade. Gorgias thought that oratory had the ability “to persuade the jurors in the court, the members of the council, and the citizens attending the assembly - in short, to win over any and every form of public meeting of the citizen body.
At times in a person’s life, they might come across a few situations that leave them with a major decision between two or more options that challenge what they believe or what they might think is wrong or right. These are known as ethical dilemmas. Be it seeing a friend steal something and choosing between being honest and speaking up or letting it go. It can also be getting paid more than you earned and deciding if you’re going to be greedy and keep the money or return it. We run into these situations in our lives, some bigger and more influential on our destiny’s while others are small with no real consequences.
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 the book one of Republic Socrates was concerned about what is justice. He forms a complex analysis of justice by discussing it with Polemarchus, Cephalus, and Thrasymachus. He refutes each proposition said by them, presenting implicit contradictions coming out of these man's arguments. All of this is to reach to, the Sophist, Thrasymachus. According to what's discussed in book one; Socrates sees that the Cephalus's and Polemarchus's common thinking for justice is insufficient. By entering into the dialogue in an aggressive way, Thrasymachus says that he can better explain the issue of justice. The right thing to do here is disregard justice. He blames Socrates for saying nonsense and for just questioning individuals' answers. Thrasymachus
Socrates was accused of being a sophist because he was "engaging in inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heavens, of making the weaker argument appear the stronger," and "teaching others these same things." (Apology, Plato, Philosophic Classics page 21) Socrates is also accused of denying the existence of the gods, and corrupting the youth. Socrates goes about trying to prove his innocence. The jury that Socrates was tried by was made up of 501 Athenian citizens of all classes of society. While he fails to convince the Athenian jury of his innocence, he does a wonderful job in this effort. I personally believe that Socrates is innocent, and that the Athenian jury made the wrong decision.
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.
Upon reading Plato, The Trial and Death of Socrates, Socrates strongly held views on the relationship between morality and laws become apparent to the reader. Equally, Socrates makes clear why laws should be followed and why disobedience to the law is rarely justified.
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
that it is because of the gods that things are as they seem to be. "Do you
Justice in Plato's Republic Justice. The. What is the law of justice? In this world where many people look out only for themselves, justice can be considered the happiness of oneself. But because selfish men do not always set our standards in society, to find a definition, society should look at the opinions of many.
The final case of the second game deals with this concept as well. During this case, Maya Fey has been kidnapped by an assassin, who was hired by Phoenix’s defendant, Matt Engarde, who is guilty. Phoenix is given an ultimatum by Engarde, wither he defends a guilty man, or Maya dies. This case begs the question, is it better to risk harm to those you love to expose the Truth, or is it better to keep yourself and loved ones safe and obscure the Truth. As you can see, Ace Attorney often deals with the conflict between truth and Truth.
responds in situations where hard choices must be made between lies and honor or truth
There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for themselves by looking to new divinities.
The charges against Socrates were brought upon him by a man names Meletus. Meletus was a young man that Socrates did not know very well. These charges brought on by Meletus caused the indictment of Socrates. One of the charges in the affidavit written by Meletus against Socrates is that he is "corrupting the youth." Another charge that is brought upon Socrates is that of he is making up new Gods and disregarding the old Gods the Athenians believe in. These were the charges brought on Socrates.
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.