When one is just, he seems to receive endless amounts of praise and fortune due to the common belief of those surrounding him that he is indeed just. Contrary, when one is unjust, he receives endless amounts of shame and hardships due to the prevailing belief of those surrounding him that he is indeed unjust. However, one has the ability to put on a façade and deceive those around him into thinking that he is just, when, in reality, he is unjust. This can lead to many misinterpretations of a man’s true actions as his peers do not truly know, nor even realize that they do not know, that he may be unjust in private affairs. Similarly, if a man has a universal reputation for being unjust, but is actually just, he would be treated as if he indeed …show more content…
They have confined natural human behavior by laws and covenants, punishing actions that reward oneself and could reward others. This shows that human nature is to act selfishly and unjustly, which some people see as immoral and bad. Acting in this way leads to fortune and greatness, not only for the person doing the unjust actions, but for the community as a whole. Plato states that, “Apart from someone of godlike character who is disgusted by injustice or one who has gained knowledge and avoids injustice for that reason, no one is just willingly” (136). This shows that given the choice to not be just in order to actually achieve one’s goals, the person would accept it. Being just is not the first option that someone has naturally, but is forced by laws to promote it to their first choice. Plato is not arguing for there to be total and utter chaos. This is an argument about the fact that being unjust is more beneficial to oneself and others in purely philosophical terms only. For if there were no laws and no punishments for unjust behavior, the world would fall into anarchy and society would crumble away. Humans have evolved and improved their lives because of laws which outlaw killing and stealing, which could be a sign that implementing these measures to promote justice in the world is more beneficial than everyone being unjust and taking whatever they
Today, we see it everywhere. On reality tv, court tv, and even on the news. We are constantly required to judge peoples actions as just or unjust.
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.
takes this a step further and states that something that is good must not only
Justice is perhaps the most formidable instrument that could be used in the pursuit of peace. It allows for people to rise above the state of mere nature and war with one another. However the fool believes that justice is a mere tool to be used to acquire power and rule at his own discretion. Can it be possible for anyone to be that virtuous? Or does power acquired in that manner actually come from somewhere else? Through justice it’s possible to produce a sovereign that is in harmony with the very people that constitute its power. The argument against the fool and for justice will proceed from this foundation.
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?
'And each makes laws to its own advantage. Democracy makes democratic laws, tyranny makes tyrannical laws, and so on with the others. And they declare what they have made - what is to their own advantage - to be just for their subjects, and they punish anyone who goes against this as lawless and unjust. This, then, is what I say justice is, the same in all cities, the advantage of the established rule. Since the established rule is surely stronger, anyone who reasons correctly will conclude that the just is the same everywhere, namely, the advantage of the stronger.'" Plato, Republic, Book 1, 338
Last but not least, injustice does not provide the most good for the most number of people. Just acts spawn other just acts just like unjust acts spawn other unjust acts. If everyone behaved unjustly, mankind would return to a state of nature (everyone is for themselves) which would be very unprofitable for the unjust individual due to a decreased likelihood of survival. An action is clearly unprofitable for the unjust individual if it would eventually create a hostile environment for him. Hence, one should set an example for others by living a just life which would create a better environment for him as well as for others.
To be just or unjust. To be happy or unhappy? Men fall into these two categories. Why does a man act according to these 2 extremes? Is it because they fear punishment? Are they quivering in fear of divine retribution? Or do men do just things because it is good for them to do so? Is justice, good of its rewards and consequences? Or is it good for itself. What is justice? Are the people who are just, just as happy as the people who are unjust? Plato sheds light on these questions and says yes, I have the definition of justice and yes, just people are happy if not happier than unjust people. Plato show’s that justice is worthwhile in and of itself and that being a just person equates to being a happy person. In my opinion, Plato does a good job and is accurate when explaining what it is to be just and this definition is an adequate solution to repairing an unjust person or an unjust city or anything that has an unjust virtue and using the definition of what justice is accurately explains why just people are happier than unjust people.
In the Plato’s Republic mainly discuses the idea of what justice is. The answer to this question has a variety of answers according to the Republic, which makes it very interesting. Throughout this book, you will be driven in many directions of what justice is. Some may the answer is to primarily is doing the right thing. The main issue comes from about is whether to try and be just at the expense of staying poor, or lie, or even use the very unjust means to get what one wants in life. The main point of the book is a man who tries to be very just, may spend life wandering in the streets in search for money, while the man who lies to get their way, will be rich. This essay looks at the Thrasymachus’s concept of and the Socrates’s concept of justice. The essay also looks at the author thinks that the unjust man will be happier that the just man. It explores the reasons why the concepts are right or wrong.
Judge W. James O’Neill is a primary example of a just man in the 21st century. Though he was not the perfect man, O’Neill spent his days trying to make the world a better place for individuals from all walks of life, “He had friends...of all shapes and sizes… rich, poor, black, white, democrat, republican, lawyer, defendant, you name it” (Michael O’Neill). He continuously acted out of the goodness of his heart without seeking personal glory. Because of his just actions during life, his legacy of justice and kindness will continue to live on long after his
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.
For many years, dating back to the first birth of man there has been the ultimate question of what makes a man just. This question has been pondered by numerous great philosophers. The question is varied to answer because of a multitude of opinions due to the nature of human diversity. Whether or not there is an objective answer to the question still remains a mystery. Plato and Epicurus have both given their detailed opinions of what makes one just. Plato believes that justness is something that comes from a more internal location dealing with the soul this disagrees with the idea that Epicurus holds which is justness is more of a physical or external matter. In this paper I will prove that Plato's ideas on this subject are the more appropriate and more truthful.
Plato rejects the contractarian reconciliation of morality with individual rationality primarily because the thinks that the contractarian conception assumes that a person's motives for being just are necessarily based her self-interest, while our concept of the just person holds that to be truly just one must value justice for its own sake. The contractarian account is also unacceptable because it has no foorce in the case of the Lydia Shepherd.(3) Finally, Plato holds that we must reject the contractarian account because a better account is available to us, viz., his own account of justice. But to show this Plato must establish each of the following: 1. There really is a difference between perceived self-interest and actual self-interest, that there can be a difference between what one believes to be in one's interest and what really is in one's interest. 2. Provide an account of what one's actual self-interest is.(4) 3.
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil. This is where Plato’s argument that justice is in one’s self-interest is disturbed. This paper will discuss the idea that justice is not in one’s self-interest, and thus does not pay.
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.