Republic by Plato War in Relation to Justice, Injustice, and the Just City
Beginning in Book I Socrates states clearly that injustice causes war and justice causes the opposite, but by Book V he seems to have a completely different perspective on whether war is just or not. His mind apparently begins to change in Book II when he introduces the second class of people, namely the guardians, with the purpose of defending the city. Throughout Books II, IV and V Socrates discusses the topic of war in light of justice and finally concludes that war is the outworking of the perfectly just city.
In Book I, Socrates states that "Injustice... causes civil war, hatred, and fighting among themselves, while justice brings friendship and a sense of common purpose." So, according to Socrates in this first book, injustice leads to war. In relation to war Socrates later says that "injustice has the power, first, to make whatever it arises in... incapable of achieving anything as a unit, because of the civil wars and differences it creates, and, second, it makes that unit any enemy to itself and to what is in every way its opposite, namely, justice" (351e-352a). An objection to this argument may be this: If injustice arises in a city, is the city incapable of achieving a civil war as a unit? The differences in the city may be the cause of the war rather than the war the cause of the differences. There are bound to be differences in a city, and those differences could be large enough to cause two opposing groups to emerge, causing a civil war. These differences could have nothing to do with injustice. I do not see how Socrates has any basis for his claim that injustice causes civil war.
Later in Republic, Socrates seems to stay consistent...
... middle of paper ...
...g to Book IV it would be just. It seems Socrates has changed his mind about how he thinks of war in relation to justice and injustice from Book I to Book IV.
In conclusion, Socrates starts out being adamant about injustice causing war and fighting, but in the end he sees it as being the result of perfect justice being played out in a city. This change in thinking seems to have taken place in Book II when he introduces the idea of creating a second group of people in the city called the guardians. From this point on, Socrates seems to promote war in the city and describing it as being just. By Book V Socrates is completely into making laws regarding war and promoting it within the just city. Although Socrates starts out strongly promoting his thoughts about how war originates, he completely changes his mind by Book V and believes war to be just in his ideal city.
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
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
There are many instances in Plato's the Crito where Socrates gives reasons for himself to stay in Athens and face his death. Arguments range from that of him being too old to run, to the common response two wrongs don't make a right. The reason I intend to argue against is one Socrates expresses in regards to his obligations to the city he has lived in all his life, and thus the rules that he has subsequently followed throughout that time. In Athens just like any other city, one follows the rules that the respective city has laid down because he/she believes in those laws, or does not and keeps silent. In the stand Socrates takes, he argues that since he has lived in Athens all his life, he is required to stand his ground and take what's thrown his way, even if that punishment is death, "do you think you have the right to retaliation against your country and its laws?" (Crito, 53) Socrates was a master of words. It is easy to say that his intellect allowed him to make anyone see all sides of an argument. Even Crito at times is confused about his decision to free his friend, think that he is making the right decision, "or do you think it possible for a city not to be destroyed if the verdicts of its courts have no force but are nullified and set at naught by private individuals."(Crito, 52) Socrates’ words are very convincing, but what he is not thinking about is the fact that this whole predicament was not meant to be. Socrates was supposed to be in all ...
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.
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.
Throughout Book 1 of The Republic, Socrates sets out to answer two questions: (1) What is Justice? and Why should we be just? Book 1 seems to be a large argument where in the end there is no progress being made. As Book 1 begins, Socrates is beginning his return from a religious festival where they are convinced to go to friends house. At this point, they begin to discuss old age until the conversation changes to that of justice.
...purpose is “to unmask the hypocrisy and show how the meaning of Justice is being perverted” . He is not prepared to argue, leaving Socrates victorious. Here, Socrates’s method of argumentative questioning is insufficient and naïve against a stubborn, powerful and philosophically certain moral skeptic. This is confirmed by the change in investigative approach in the latter books. Thus the ‘earlier’ Plato cannot adequately respond to Thrasymachus’s immoralist view of Justice.
This view makes more sense as Socrates has thought about the issue more than the comrade and instead he thought about what gain was to conclude to what a lover of gain is. Their contradicting views relate to the human problem of the philosopher versus the city. A philosopher will have a wiser view on the answers due to their deep thoughts; whereas, the city’s view is more irrational and is not ruled by wisdom. This the reason why the human problem could not be solved as the city’s view will contradict the philosopher’s just the views on the lovers of gain.
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.
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.
(37) The problem is that many of the citizens of Athens who wanted Socrates dead, lacked that emotional intelligence and thought highly of themselves. So of course they become defensive when Socrates sheds light on the idea that they may be wrong. As someone who cared most about the improvement of the soul, Socrates would have made a constructive role model to the criminals of Athens, as he would go on saying, “virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man…”(35) Socrates was able to benefit everyone alike as he had human wisdom- something that all the Athenians could relate
The second argument that supports Socrates decision to stay in prison is that of the repercussions to the city of Athens. If Socrates escaped, the Athens city together with its fabric, laws, would be annihilated. By the extension, destruction of the Athens’ city equally destroyed the lives of people of Athens. Socrates argues that harming others is similar to harming ones soul because such an act constituted an unjust act. Therefore, it was a wiser decision to meet death rather than escape.
Socrates questions Thrasymachus on why he adds the detail of the stronger to his definition of justice. Socrates than asks, if it is just for everyone to follow the laws that the ruler has made, if the ruler has made unjust laws. His argument is that people, even rulers make mistakes. This meaning that if a ruler makes mistakes on the law does that still make it just. It is a very conflicting argument to think about, if the rules are not just then why should they be followed but the rules were also put in place by someone who is supposed to know the difference between just and unjust and choose correctly. This relates to what Socrates says during his trial portrayed in the Apology. Socrates claims