Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Justice as a central theme in Plato's ideal state
Justice as a central theme in Plato's ideal state
Justice as a central theme in Plato's ideal state
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Justice as a central theme in Plato's ideal state
Justice as a scale
A. Introduction
Can Plato's theory of individual justice, after 2,500 years, still provide an explanation of what is going on in the minds of today's human beings?
After an explanation of Plato’s theory of individual justice, I will try in a second step to support its plausibility with a few examples; then I will state objections against his theory and further give counterarguments to prove Plato’s theory to be consistent and plausible. The last part provides the conclusion.
B. Plato's theory of individual justice put to the test
I. Plato's theory of individual justice
Plato's theory of individual justice is based on his construction of an “ideal city” that holds civic justice via an argumentum a fortiori (a maiore ad minus): “If we first tried to observe justice in some larger thing that possessed it, this would make it easier to observe it in a single individual” . That is why I am going to outline first the domicile of the four virtues in the “ideal city” and explain in a second part, what individual justice is.
Plato's “ideal city” has three different classes of inhabitants: 'producers', 'guardians' and 'rulers'. Each of these classes wears a main virtue: the producers have 'moderation' , the guardians own 'courage' and the rulers must hold 'wisdom' . The fourth virtue, justice, is to be found if each class does “its own work in the city” and are “not meddling with what isn't one's own” . “It is the power that makes it possible for them to grow in the city and that preserves them when they've grown for as long as it remains there itself”. Justice itself is claimed to be the major virtue as injustice is “the worst thing that someone could do to his city” . So this major virtue is 'embracing' all the other virtues and bringing harmony.
As stated before, these four virtues can be found in the individual's soul as well.: the tripartite conception of the soul and an harmonizing individual justice as fourth virtue. The three different parts are: the 'appetitive', 'spirited' and 'rational'. They correspond each to the classes’ of the “ideal city” and their function: first the 'appetitive' part corresponds to the producers' moderation, second the 'spirited' part with the guardians' courage and third the 'rational' part of the soul with the wisdom resided in the rulers. “We'll call the part of the soul with which...
... middle of paper ...
... reason, it must be that ordinary men do that, too. That is why the third objection has to be declined as well.
d) The last objection I can think of is that the “ideal city” leads only to the “ideal human being” that has ideal justice. Actually that is no objection, as Plato didn't claim his “individual justice” as a balancing harmony to be not the one of a perfect man. The opposite is the case: He even shows what is going to happen, if injustice is ruling in the soul. So Plato concludes from the “ideal city” to the “ideal human being” and doesn’t fail here.
All the objections fail to prove Plato's theory of individual justice to be false. So his theory seems to be consistent enough to give a plausible description of reality.
C. Conclusion
After stating the content of Plato's theory of individual justice, I took and supported his point of view by figuring out the structure of his arguments, added another metaphor for a more descriptive explanation and two more examples. While trying to find consistent objections against Plato's theory, the counterarguments prevailed. So Plato's theory of individual justice is after 2,500 years still a consistent model.
In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.
Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual. However, Plato examines the justice system from the perfect society and Aeschylus starts at the curse on the House of Atreus and the blood spilled within the family of Agamemnon.
In conclusion three notions of justice developed in Book I of The Republics of Plato are outlined in On Justice, Power and Human Nature. Justice is viewed as telling the truth and paying debts, doing good to friends and harm to enemies, and the advantage of the stronger.
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. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge.
Truth be told there is no real justice in Socrates? ?just city?. Servitude of those within his city is crucial to its function. His citizens are, in every aspect, slaves to the functionality of a city that is not truly their own. True justice can not be achieved through slavery and servitude, that which appears to be justice (and all for the sake of appearances) is all that is achieved. Within Socrates? city there is no room for identity, individuality, equality, or freedom, which are the foundations justice was built upon. These foundations are upheld within a proper democracy. In fact, the closest one can experience justice, on a political level, is through democracy.
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
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.
...ct city consists of everyone feeling equal to one another from birth to present. Plato thinks a just city is formed on the beliefs that everyone is forced into specific factions and told who to unify with, despite the persons personal beliefs. Plato's views on a "just city" were to far fetched and had a very similar ideology to communism. Aristotle even agreed that taking away private property was a bad idea because it "takes away the incentive to work hard" (Aristotle, ppt9).
In Book 1 of the ‘Republic’, Socrates, in answer to the question ‘What is Justice?’ is presented with a real and dangerous alternative to what he thinks to be the truth about Justice. Julia Annas believes Thrasymachus thinks Justice and Injustice do have a real existence that is independent of human institutions; and that Thrasymachus makes a decided commitment to Injustice. She calls this view ‘Immoralism’: “the immoralist holds that there is an important question about justice, to be answered by showing that injustice is better.” This essay identifies this ‘Immoral’ view before understanding if and how Plato can respond to it. How does Plato attempt to refute Thrasymachus’s argument? Is he successful?
Within two classical works of philosophical literature, notions of justice are presented plainly. Plato’s The Republic and Sophocles’ Antigone both address elements of death, tyranny and immorality, morality, and societal roles. These topics are important elements when addressing justice, whether in the societal representation or personal representation.
One of Plato's goals in The Republic, as he defines the Just City, is to illustrate what kind of leader and government could bring about the downfall of his ideal society. To prevent pride and greed in leaders would ensure that they would not compromise the well being of the city to obtain monetary gains or to obtain more power. If this state of affairs becomes firmly rooted in the society, the fall to Tyranny begins. This is the most dangerous state that the City become on i...
In Plato’s “Republic”, Socrates creates an ideal society in his perspective. He contemplates what his idea of ‘justice’ is. According to Socrates, justice is the “…having and doing what is a man’s own, and belongs to him”. (Book 4 pg. 12) Justice is giving to everyone what they deserve. Socrates uses the ‘myth of the metals’ as an example to show how justice can prosper in a society, while also showing a way that democracy can be unjust.
...is own desires rather than his subjects needs is not virtuous. Second, a person in the military, who is supposed to be courageous may desert his fellow troops in fear. Third, many common people commit crimes, and create conflict within the community. None of these people are virtuous. However, this is exactly what Plato was getting at. Plato believes that when each of these classes performs its own role and does not try to take over any other class, the entire city as a whole will operate smoothly, showing the harmony that is genuine justice. (ln 433e) What makes the Republic such an important and interesting piece of literature is that by examining what brings true justice and harmony to the world, we can therefore understand all of the virtues by considering how each is placed within the organization of an ideal city.
In the end, justice does not pay for any level of person in an ideal city. Plato must prove early on that justice is inherently good, and just actions are inherently good. The first point is dismissed for the sake of argument, and the second is uncertain due to the questions the myth of Gyges surfaces. The prime example of doing what is just is a citizen’s performance of his work within the city, thus making it just for the philosophers to rule. Despite ruling being a just action, ruling is an intrinsic evil, and thus does not pay the philosophers. This is more clearly defined looking at the producer’s work in the city. In the essential case of performing one’s job, justice does not pay the
In order to understand how unity and harmony tie the ideal state together, one must first understand the coloration of unity with justice. Simply defined justice, according to Plato, is specialization. Each person doing their own craft is what justice entails. However, this definition of justice leads to something larger within the individual and the state. According to Plato, "... we must compel these Guardians and Auxiliaries of ours to second our efforts; and they, and all the rest with them, must be induced to make themselves perfect masters each of his own craft. In that way, as a community grows into a well ordered whole, the several classes may be allowed such measure of happiness as their nature will compass" (P, p. 111). The theory of justice as specialization leads to the happiness of the whole.