Comparing Plato's Idea Of Justice In Glaucon And Adeimatus

Plato begins to build this conception of the idea of justice in response to the challenge that Glaucon and Adeimatus presents. He takes the idea of constructing justice on the larger scale, in the city and comparing to what it would be like within the individual. In Plato ideology it is not possible for an individual to understand justice unless they fully comprehend their role in the community. He starts his city with division of labours, with craftsman and farmers. A community were everyone specializes in their trade. In effort to build a more luxurious city, which requires larger amounts of land and food supply. The city needs a class of strong trained soldiers called guardians. Their role is to serve and protect the city from war. The city

There is an ultimate result that we want for its own sake rather as means to an end; the highest good. Politics studies this supreme good because it deals with ethics. Happiness is the highest good because it is self-sufficient as to say every actions specific end is happiness. By determining the function of man it will decide what happiness is. Man’s function sets him apart. Thus the function of man is activity of the soul according to reason; acting virtuously. Since happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with perfect virtue. Politically speaking it dictates what we should or should not do, its end is the some for a single man and for the state, greater good and happiness of all. A good government is one who promotes its citizens to act virtuously. Virtue is found within the two extreme of vice; excess and deficiency. Virtues are habits that become pleasant through right actions and painful through wrong. Virtue is what allows man to function well. Likewise to quality as virtuous, a man must act and know he is acting virtuously by forming good habits. This is why the state is essential since law and education are crucial means of making citizens virtuous. A city is created for the sake of living well and law is necessary since it forces virtuous actions in the

However, key differences in each of their writings is how virtue is acquired. Plato held the socratic belief that knowledge is virtue is in and of itself. That knowing what is the good thing to do will lead you to doing the good action. Through knowledge and wisdom is how all other virtues become clear in terms of right and wrong. Finally, Plato believed that virtue was sufficient in order to achieve happiness. Aristotle on the other hand, differed in opinion in comparison with Plato. Knowledge in Aristotle’s opinion was not satisfactory enough just to know how to be virtuous. Alternately, he strongly enforces the concept that man needs to habituate themselves to virtue. In order to be truly virtuous it is essential to grow up in the habit of acting righteous; actions that through habit become pleasant and right. That one had to choose to act in the right manner. Although wisdom, can be considered a high form of virtue it does not carry all the means to all virtues. Aristotle believed wisdom is an end goal that was only achieved through continuous effort, a choice. A person who chose to think and act the right way than all other virtuous may be achieved. Plato also believed virtue is how one acquired happiness and there is no such thing as moral luck. However, Aristotle believed virtue was a necessity for happiness but not for itself because social constructs are what help an individual feel