Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
concept of justice
plato theory of justice
plato theory of justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: concept of justice
The term justice is used in some of America's most treasured and valued documents, from the Pledge of Allegiance, to the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. Everyone wants to be treated justly whether it's in the courtroom or the local bar. Most people would feel confident giving a definition for justice, but would it be a definition we could universally agree to? Given that justice is a very common term, and something we all want, it's important to have a precise definition. For hundreds of years philosophers have argued, debated, and fought over this topic. Justice can clearly be defined as the intention to conform to truth and fairness. This is true justice.
In Plato's, "The Republic", Thrasymachus and Socrates debated on the topic of justice. Thrasymachus seemed to be very sure of himself when he defined the idea. He claimed justice was "nothing but the interest of the stronger." He is asserting that because the wealthy and powerful create the laws and inflict penalty for an offense, then we must define justice as whatever the wealthy and powerful want it to be. Socrates had a different idea as to how to define justice. He seemed to define justice in terms of pure selflessness and a constant and unwavering desire to do what is right. He described a ruler who makes decisions without regard for himself and thinking only of the best interest of the people under his rule. Thrasymachus expresses a harsh and negative view of society and the people in charge, while Socrates described a nearly perfect human being. Both views are extreme; the answer must lie somewhere in the middle. Socrates' definition of justice would in fact be true if it could actually exist. I can imagine this just person Socrates creates the s...
... middle of paper ...
...you will find many different types of justice from distributive, to retributive and compensatory. There are not different types of justice. You do not make an idea more just by adding justice to the end of it. Justice is the intention to conform to truth and fairness.
Justice is not a concept easily defined, and it can be even harder to pursue. It is, however the responsibility of society to conform to the truth and fairly and reasonably seek justice. When it is clear to us what justice is, it should also be clear to us when justice is not being carried out. We must empower and exemplify the just, and redirect the unjust. We should strive to embody the definition Socrates uses to describe justice, and while we will most certainly fall short of this mythical justice, we can take comfort in the fact that through our just intentions we will achieve true justice.
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.
By definition justice means the quality of being just or fair. The issue then stands, is justice fair for everyone? Justice is the administration of law, the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments, "justice deferred is justice denied.” The terms of Justice is brought up in Henry David Thoreau’s writing, “Civil Disobedience.”
Justice is defined in many different ways, one referring to a form of judgment that provides order in a situation. Justice offers a fair punishment that fits the offense. The term holds a positive connotation, in contrast to the word injustice.
Justice is described as “a moral concept that is difficult to define, but in essence it means to treat people in ways consistent with
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
Thrasymachus said in a meeting with Cephalus, which many of us have attended, that justice are only made to advantage the ruling class and not as profitable as injustice. (The Republic I, 344a-d), which most of us have disagreed and only Socrates defended justice and convinced him. Today let us think only of justice in Socrates’ case. Are we today going to be
Justice. What is 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 decide our standards in society, to find a definition, society should look at the opinions of many. Just as in the modern society to which we live, where everyone feels justice has a different meaning, the society of Plato also struggled with the same problem. In this paper, I will look into the Republic, one of the books of Plato that resides heavily on defining an answer to the meaning of Justice, and try to find an absolute definition. I will also give my opinion on what I personally think justice is.
Socrates then sums up his statements. Injustice is never more profitable than justice, no matter how you argue Thrasymachus. Although Socrates realizes he has refuted Thrasymachus, he also realizes his argument is incomplete. The most important issue -- what is the nature of justice -- has not been solved. Justice is an excellence of human character and a source of happiness. However, knowing these things is just a beginning. What is the just life? Therefore, Socrates concludes that more investigation is needed.
Justice is defined in law enforcement in many different and accurate ways. Justice is inevitable and controversial when defining it in terms of law enforcement. Law enforcement is challenged in every possible way as the career is one of many judgmental decisions and controversial actions. Laws have been implemented to enact justice and law enforcement is responsible to uphold the laws for the better of all individuals in the criminal justice system. Justice is defined as being fair and just and upholding the law in accordance to high standards through moral rightness and sound reason for the safety of law enforcement and society.
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
It is important to acknowledge that Justice protects our possession and our rights as humans. Without justice, it would be more likely for destruction to occur than that of benevolence in a society. Glaucon and Hume philosophy of justice aligns with each other, in the sense that justice is a contract created to prevent people from killing each other. I agree that the sole purpose of justice is its utility to the public. Although, I cannot help thinking what would happen if I possessed the power to be unjust without ever suffering consequences.
In Book one of the Republic of Plato, several definitions of justice versus injustice are explored. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon and Thracymicus all share their opinions and ideas on what actions they believe to be just, while Socrates questions various aspects of the definitions. In book one, Socrates is challenged by Thracymicus, who believes that injustice is advantageous, but eventually convinces him that his definition is invalid. Cephalus speaks about honesty and issues of legality, Polemarchus explores ideas regarding giving to one what is owed, Glaucon views justice as actions committed for their consequences, and Socrates argues that justice does not involve harming anybody. Through the interrogations and arguments he has with four other men, and the similarity of his ideas of justice to the word God, Socrates proves that a just man commits acts for the benefits of others, and inflicts harm on nobody.
The debate between Thrasymachus and Socrates begins when Thrasymachus gives his definition of justice in a very self-interested form. Thrasymachus believes that justice is only present to benefit the ruler, or the one in charge – and for that matter any one in charge can change the meaning of justice to accommodate their needs (343c). Thrasymachus provides a very complex example supporting his claim. He states that the man that is willing to cheat and be unjust to achieve success will be by far the best, and be better than the just man.
In the Republic that Plato wrote in 380 before J.C. to give his opinion of the political state and justice, many definitions are given through the character of Socrates, who was Plato's mentor, and through characters inspired of Greek philosophers, generally sophists, as Thrasymachus, and Glaucon, who was Plato's own brother. Definitions are given as outcomes of debates between Socrates and the sophists, during which each character leads at a moment or another, until a stronger argument, usually asserted by Socrates, close the discussion. In this way, Plato explores a range of different points of view and aspects of the meaning of justice. It appears that they are four definitions of justice given by Cephalus, Thrasymachus, Socrates himself, Glaucon and Adeimantus.
Justice is a very interesting concept. As an idea it is often very difficult to define because justice is often perceived differently by each individual to whom it is applied. Even today, there are many definitions by which it operates. Each of these different definitions has been informed to some degree by the work of either Rousseau, Hume, or Kant. Each philosopher took a vastly different stance on what constituted justice and the manner in which justice functioned in society. Rousseau believed very simply that justice was reflective of the common will. Hume believed that justice was little more than an “artificial virtue” and only