Plato Justice Vs Injustice Essay

In Plato’s Republic, the argument of justice versus injustice is the dominating dialogue between Socrates, Glaucon, Thrasymachus, and other philosophical thinkers. By looking at the big picture, moving towards an individual level, Plato insists the necessity of justice within the state demonstrates the necessity of justice within the individual. Plato believes justice is unfailingly better than injustice. In the following paragraphs, I will summarize Plato’s explanation of justice and evaluate it. I will argue that Plato’s analogy between state and soul is not a fair comparison.

Summary

Plato wants everyone to believe that it is better to be just than unjust. Through the voice of Socrates, Plato creates a dialogue, examining the importance of being just through questions and rational reasoning. A philosopher, Glaucon, gives an example to prove that injustice is more beneficial than justice. Telling the legend of “The Ring of Gyges”, Glaucon explains that every man assumes injustice is beneficial to the self. Injustice produces happiness for the individual.

Each person in the city has a role, in which they were created to fulfill. One person cannot fulfill all the roles perfectly: “Would someone do a more beautiful job who, being one, worked at many arts, or when one person works at one art?” (Baird, 72). The three roles Plato speaks of are the Guardians, Auxiliaries and Craftsmen. The Guardians rule over the entire state, the Auxiliaries protect the state and the Craftsmen sustain the state via goods. The goal within the state is for everyone to have a role and complete it perfectly. All people from the state from a young age are put into the correct group according to their nature. They are educated to realize this method is just. When an individual of the state attempts to do a job outside of their nature, it causes great injustice. This concept is then assumed to