Essay On Procedural Justice

1012 Words3 Pages

There are three types of Justice discussed in Book 1 of Plato’s Republic which are Retributive, Procedural, and Social Justice. Retributive justice is the type of justice that requires someone to pay back their debts if they took something. According to Cephalus, justice requires ‘repayment’ from those who have taken something. For example, The death penalty can be considered retributive justice because someone may have took a life and now their life will be taken from them in return. Procedural justice is doing good for someone that you are close with but doing harm to someone you do not get along with. Polemarchus believes that justice is doing good to good people and doing bad to bad people. For example, Giving your friend a ride to …show more content…

The third justice mentioned in the text is Social justice which is similar to procedural justice. Social justice requires not only making people better than the already are but also making them more just then they were before. Socrates believes that justice requires making all people more good, and more just. The difference between Retributive justice and the other types of justice is that it applies to a situation where someone has took something and did not give it back. Another example would be taking a chair and not returning it as promised.The difference between procedural justice and the other forms of justice is that is deals with only doing good for your friends and doing bad things to those who are not your friends. The difference between Social justice and the other types of justice is taking a person and making them better than they were before and more …show more content…

A wise man from greece named, Thrasymachus’ believed that justice did not benefit anyone in a positive way except for the ruler. He believed that justice was for those who were strong. He also believed that justice was an “instrumental” good for the ruler. He believed that every society had a government. There is always someone who makes the rules and laws no matter where you go. He knew that every society had a government and he also knew that they made laws to benefit their ruling type. For example, a King who is a tyrant wants laws that helps him keep in power, and prevents anyone else from getting enough power to raise a challenge. Living in a city ran by a tyrant is not beneficial to any of the citizens even if they obey all of the laws. If it isn’t beneficial for the citizens to live in that city there can not be social justice. Social justice is to help better someone and make them more just and you can’t really do that if you just have justice to benefit you and not others. As a citizen the laws should benefit everyone not just the ruler. However, Socrates argues that tyrants can make mistakes and that they can be wrong about which laws help keep them in power . Which is understandable because in life everyone does make mistakes even the people with high authority. Socrates does not agree that justice is only good for the ruler. Thrasymachus’ argues that a person knowledgeable in a

Show More
Related

  • Justice in Plato´s The Republic

    565 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Apology: The Book Of Crito

    1721 Words  | 4 Pages

    From all three arguments in the book, the most fundamental principle of Socrates is that the really important thing is not just to live, but to live well. Living a good life meant living a life without doing wrong, and not hurting his country and its citizens.. Socrates stated that the laws and the city could be destroyed if he escaped. The laws would lose their force, and a country without laws would be chaos. In addition to harming the city, Socrates thought he would harm the condition of his soul by escaping. His soul would be harmed if he harmed others by breaking the laws. Being responsible for harm to others would cause harm to his soul. Also, he did make a tacit agreement to follow the laws of Athens since he had lived under them for over seventy years, raised his children under them, and did not try to persuade the city to change them(Plato 54). According to Socrates, living justly also meant not breaking or disobeying the laws. To Socrates, nothing could be worse than breaking the laws and escape. Escaping from jail was a wrong action no matter what good reason he had, especially if this might bring harm to his country. Socrates declared, “One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated” (Plato 49b). Socrates stated a truth, law breaking is unjust, while observance of laws is just, because laws are just. However, are all laws just? Should we obey all laws regarding the law itself is morally justice or

    Read More

  • The Concept Of Justice In Plato's Republic

    1333 Words  | 3 Pages

    Kephalos defines justice as returning what one has received (Ten Essays, Leo Strauss, page 169). On the other hand, Kaphalos’ son, Polemarchus, states that justice is found in harming one’s enemies and helping ones’ friends (Republic, 332D). The final opinion in the discussion is given by Thrasymachus as he says: “justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger” (Republic, 338C). However, the lack of knowledge to apply their definitions in reality creates a problem for Socrates. For example, Polemarchos’ view on justice requires a person to be able to distinguish between a friend and an enemy (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Socrates then refutes their definitions of justice and states that it is an advantage to be just and a disadvantage to be unjust. According to Socrates’ philosophy, “a just man will harm no man” and the application of justice becomes an art conjoined with philosophy, the medicine of the soul (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Therefore, the use of philosophy in ruling a city is necessary and the end goal of justice cannot be achieved unless the philosophers

    Read More

  • Justice Exemplified by Plato and Thucydides

    618 Words  | 2 Pages

    Also Plato and Thucydides incorporate the concept that justice is helping one's friends and harming one's enemies. Polemarchus, in The Republics, states that he agrees with Simonides' maxim that it is "just to give each what is owed," (Plato, 331e). This leads to Polemarchus' assertion that that justice is doing good to friends...

    Read More

  • Nature Vs Nurture In Plato's The Republic

    1435 Words  | 3 Pages

    It is his companions, Glaucon and Adeimantus, who revitalized Thrasymachus’ claim of justice. Thrasymachus believes that justice is what the people who are in charge say it is and from that point on it is Socrates’ goal to prove him wrong. Socrates believes that justice is desired for itself and works as a benefit. All four characters would agree that justice has a benefit. To accurately prove his point of justice, Socrates has to reference his own version of nature and nurture. He, Socrates, believes that justice is innately born in everyone. No one person is incapable of being just. Justice is tantamount to a skill or talent. Like any skill or talent, justice must be nurtured so that it is at its peak and mastered form. The city that Socrates has built is perfect in his eyes because every denizen has been gifted with a talent, then properly educated on how best to use their talent, and lastly able to apply their just morals in everyday

    Read More

  • Justice In Plato's The Republic

    1072 Words  | 3 Pages

    Also, that justice is a certain type of specialization, meaning that performing a particular task that is a person’s own, not of someone else’s. Plato (2007), Polemarchus argues with Socrates in book I that, “Justice was to do good to a friend and harm to an enemy” (335b p.13). Plato (2007) he then responds, “It is not the function of the just man to harm either his friends or anyone else, but of his opposite the unjust man” (335d p.14). His views of justice are related to contemporary culture, because when someone does something that they are supposed to do, they receive credit or a reward for it, but if the opposite of that is performed, by not doing the particular task that is asked, they are then rewarded but with punishments. Also, that justice is doing the right thing in a society. Justice of contemporary culture does not diverge from the views offered in The Republic and Socrates views are adequate, because if a task is not performed the way it needs to be, and is supposed to be a person should not be rewarded for it. Additionally, that an individual should be just not

    Read More

  • Essay On The Court System

    1988 Words  | 4 Pages

    Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.

    Read More

  • Plato Justice And Ethics

    1009 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the Republic, Plato discusses many topics, including the issue of justice versus injustice (Plato 34). Plato’s argument indicates that justice works interchangeably with proper ethics (Plato 35). According to Plato, in order for a person to live the “best life”, they must live with justice and ethics (Plato 35). These two terms are similar in the sense that it is subjective to each individual. One’s definition of justice results from their own beliefs of ethics, which varies from person to person. Plato claims that doing “justice” is the better way of living, even if it brings misfortune in the end (Plato 34-35). This brings up the ethical dispute that misfortunes from justice is better than rewards earned from injustice. However, as seen in modern day, there is still no universal idea as to whether or not something is justifiable or abides by the ethical conduct that is expected. Often times, an action may seem justified to one individual while it seems unjustified to another. In order for someone to get what they want, they don’t think about their actions, whether or not it is following their ethical codes. In this case, the idea of “justice” and “ethics” is purely a mirage of the mind that people created so that they have a reason to feel good about themselves. In today’s society, many people get away with doing “injustice” while the actions of “justice” are disregarded. The definition of “justice” and “ethics” is still open-ended as demonstrated by justice system of the United States. There are people getting away with crimes and innocent people being put into prisons. Many times, these cases communicate the racial discrimination in the states.

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus and Socrates

    771 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.

    Read More

  • Definition Of Justice In Book 1 Of The Republic

    703 Words  | 2 Pages

    Cephalus is the first to give a definition of justice, which is, living up to your legal obligations and being honest. At first I thought this definition was somewhat accurate because if everyone met their legal obligations everything would be fine. Socrates refutes this definition by using the example of a madman. Basically, what happens if you owe a madman a weapon, but him having it is unjust and causes others harm? At this point, it would almost be better to be dishonest.

    Read More

  • The Republic - Book 1 - Theme Of Justice

    2360 Words  | 5 Pages

    Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice. Thus the role of Book I is to turn the minds from the customary evaluation of justice towards this new vision. Through the discourse between Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Socaretes’ thoughts and actions towards justice are exemplified. Though their views are different and even opposed, the way all three discourse about justice and power reveal that they assume the relation between the two to be separate. They find it impossible to understand the idea that being just is an exercise of power and that true human power must include the ability to act justly. And that is exactly what Socrates seeks to refute.

    Read More

  • Socrates Argument in the Crito

    1099 Words  | 3 Pages

    Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.

    Read More

  • Analysis of Thrasymachus' Argument in The Republic

    651 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thrasymachus starts off by stating his conclusion: justice is the advantage of the stronger. He then gives Socrates two premises that he uses to arrive at his conclusion first that rulers of cities are stronger than their subjects and second that rulers declare what is just and unjust by making laws for their subjects to follow. Since justice is declared by the stronger then it must surely be a tool for the stronger.

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus Definition Of Justice Essay

    523 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thrasymachus defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. “I say justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (338c). Thrasymachus explains how rulers are the most powerful people in the city, who make the laws, which are just therefore making the rulers the stronger. He explains that rulers make laws that will benefit themselves; whether this means they make laws that are just depends on the type of ruler. “democracy makes democratic ones, tyranny tyrannical ones…” (338 10e), he is saying that if one is democratic their laws will be fair and just but if not they will make unfair rules and therefore be unjust. Thrasymachus explains that the reason he thinks that justice is the advantage for the stronger is because the people who rule cities have more power than everyone else and therefore determine what the rules are and what is just.

    Read More

  • Rule Of Law Essay

    1020 Words  | 3 Pages

    Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.

    Read More

More about Essay On Procedural Justice

Open Document