The implementation of justice and just ideals has consistently been a hallmark of structured and virtuous societies since the foundation of civilization itself. While justice itself seems relatively based on social context and can vary greatly from one society to the next, the idea that humans have an obligation to do what is right or morally correct is one that is pervasive to the human condition. In The Republic, a Socratic conversation recorded by Plato, the implementation and root of justice comes into question through the examination of different frameworks of government, each one seemingly revealing different facets of human character. While the theory presented by Glaucon as to how the concept of justice developed has virtue, it is only one explanation for a remarkably intricate and complex social value, and neglects to acknowledge different mechanisms that may be responsible for the foundation of justice. The conversation between Socrates and Glaucon begins by subjecting the idea of justice to intense scrutiny in order to determine man’s reasoning for upholding just and moral values. Glaucon considers the foundation of justice as being a
Thucydides adopts a corresponding pessimistic approach when viewing human nature and explains that power is based on self-interest and greed is a driving factor for human behavior. This viewpoint, as compared to Glaucon’s, also seems to disregard the importance of intracommunal relationships and humans’ reliance on each other for support and protection. Therefore, it simply would not make sense for humans to express hostility and greed as their default character. Thucydides most likely had a skewed perception of human nature based on his experiences in the Peloponnesian War and thus has a negative view of human nature that is not representative of the populace as a
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.
Glaucon presents an argument against justice in order to pressure Socrates to give a more convincing argument for living a just life. He was unsatisfied with Plato’s counterargument against Thrasymachus. Glaucon wants to believe that justice is good and that living a just life will result in a good life, unlike the Fool in the Leviathan. However, Glaucon strengthening the argument that the unjust life is better. Glaucon starts his argument with the three ways in which something can be good: good in itself, good in itself and good for its consequences, and bad or indifferent in itself but good for its consequences. After presenting these three types of good things, Glaucon asks Socrates to place justice into one of the three categories. Socrates’s responds by saying the he would define justice as the kind of good that we like both for its own sake and for its consequences. Glaucon then requests that Socrates present a convincing argument that justice is good for its own sake, regardless of its consequences. He essentially wants to hear a compelling argument that shows justice as a kind of good that is good for its own sake. Glaucon eventually developed a case that supports the unjust life. He argues that anyone, just or unjust, would commit acts of injustice if they could get away with it and not suffer any consequences. To support his claim, he
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.
Clearly, explain in what way Glaucon’s description of what people say about the origin of justice (about laws and mutual covenants in page 40) aligns or compares with what Hume says about the utility of justice. How do Glaucon’s and Hume’s conception of Human nature compare to each other? Do you agree with any of them? Why or why not?
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.
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.
Initially Thrasymachus states that Justice is ‘nothing else but the interest of the stronger’. Cross and Woozley identify four possible interpretations; the Naturalistic definition, Nihilistic view, Incidental comment, and the more useful Essential analysis. The ‘Essential Analysis’: “An action is just if and only if it serves the interest of the stronger,” with Thrasymachus stating the disadvantages of Justice and advantages of Injustice. This leads to problems with the stronger man, is it merely the promotion of self-interests? If Justice favours the interests of the stronger, is this simply from the perception of the weak with morality not concerning the stronger? Cross re-formulates Thrasymachus’s view as ‘Justice is the promotion of the ‘strongers’ interest’, therefore both weak and strong can act justly in furthering the strongers interests. However, complication occurs when we understand that Justice is another’s good: “You are not aware tha...
The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those views about justice are to be overcome.
Thucydides lived in a time when lands were strife with war, and strong nations overpowered weaker states in order to amass an empire. This brutal landscape shaped the way in which Thucydides viewed human nature. He believed that human nature was wild, uncontrollable, cruel, and unjust, and it must be controlled by a stronger power, namely the state of which the humans resided. Human nature drives individuals to pursue whatever means necessary in their own self-interest and greed. Both human nature and power coincide in this manner since they are both self-interested, greedy, and wish to be in control. A strong state is mandatory in order to efficiently manage both power and human nature. Thucydides states that civilization must place
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.
Glaucon attempted to prove that injustice is preferable to justice. At first, Glacon agreed with Socrates that justice is a good thing, but implored on the nature of its goodness? He listed three types of “good”; that which is good for its own sake (such as playing games), that which is good is good in itself and has useful consequences (such as reading), and that which is painful but has good consequences (such as surgery). Socrates replied that justice "belongs in the fairest class, that which a man who is to be happy must love both for its own sake and for the results." (45d) Glaucon then reaffirmed Thrasymachus’s position that unjust people lead a better life than just people. He started that being just is simply a formality for maintaining a good reputation and for achieving one’s goals. He claimed that the only reason why a person would choose to be unjust rather than just due to the fear of punishment. This is supported by the story of the shepherd who became corrupted as a result of finding a ring which made him invisible. He took over the kingdom through murder and intrigue since he knew there could be no repercussions for his unjust actions. In addition, Adiamantus stated that unjust people did not need to fear divine punishment since appeals could be made to Gods’ egos via sacrifices. Finally, Glaucon gave an example of the extreme unjust person who has accumulated great wealth and power which he juxtaposed with an extreme moral man who is being punished unjustly for his crimes. Clearly, injustice is preferable to justice since it provides for a more fruitful life.
Thrasymachus’s main argument is that, “Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger” (338c). In other words, Thrasymachus believes justice is advantageous to the stronger because those who behave justly are disadvantaged, and the strong who behave unjustly are advantaged. In his sense injustice is more profitable than justice because it allows people to enjoy benefits they would not obtain if they were to act just.
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.