More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of ethics in society
Plato's theory of an ideal society
Importance of ethics to individuals and society at large
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. Everyone in the society is naturally suited to one particular occupation; cobbler, auxiliary, and guardian. Individuals are destined to perform the functions set by their natures, and they do not deserve to perform other functions. Socrates talks about the ‘myth of the metals’ to better explain his idea that the role everyone will play in the society is pre-determined; whether it’s gold, …show more content…
In Socrates’ society, an individual is ‘naturally’ suited for one particular occupation. This may seem ‘just’ in Socrates’ mind, but could he be wrong? If that were true, then in our society (21st Century Western Culture), we should be naturally suited for one occupation. However, that is not the case, we may be really good at one thing and preform poorly in another. Going back to Socrates’ society, could it be possible that an auxiliary may do better in the cobbler’s field of work rather than as a soldier or a cobbler who is extremely wise and best occupation to be a guardian? Absolutely! Justice is giving to everyone what they deserve. If someone is suitable for the position of a guardian, but stuck as a cobbler due to that person’s status, it should be considered unjust. It contradicts Socrates’ view that justice is giving to everyone what they deserve, because someone may be better suited in a different occupation. If Socrates would have included an alternative to what role someone plays in his society, he could have increased the view of justice in the
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.
Plato's Book I of The Republics presents three fundamental views on justice which are exemplified in Thucydides' On Justice, Power and Human Nature. Justice is illustrated as speaking the paying one's debts, helping one's friends and harming one's 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.
First, I want to discuss some terms Socrates uses and how he defines them. Socrates defines the function of something as what only it can do or what it does better than anything else. For example, the function of a screwdriver would be to screw and/or unscrew. A screwdriver may now be the only thing that can screw or unscrew but it can better than anything else. Similarly, a blow dryer’s function is to dry hair, a person could dry their hair other ways, but a blow dryer dries hair better than anything else. Socrates
Socrates was a classical Greek philosopher that was born in Athens, Greece around 470/469 BC. He served in the Athenian army and fought in many battles. When Socrates retired from fighting in the army, he began focusing on expressing his beliefs. He wasn’t the typical “teacher” or “preacher”; he was a very critical and analytical thinker that helped guide his students and the Athenians during his time. Through his teachings and beliefs, Socrates had positive and negative influence on the people during his time and modern time. Although he is credited as one of the founders of Western Philosophy, Political Philosophy, and Ethics, his teachings was in disagreement with the teachings of the democracy of Athens, which led to him being put to death. Along with his philosophical beliefs, Socrates’ great thinking led to the creation of the Socratic Method and the Socratic Paradoxes.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Socrates describes his role in Athens as being a gadfly, an individual who challenges the status quo through posing novel questions. The prevailing situation in Athens then was people being involved in public affairs and politics, but Socrates decides to challenge this state of affairs by remaining largely aloof from the political arena and public affair. Instead, he prefers to interact with other people at a more individual level than being public. His actions, he notes, arise from a supernatural sign or an inner voice dissuading him from being involved on public issues (Plato). He claims at two occasions he almost died for being brave when he challenged public authorities over justice. He makes sense that an unexamined life is not worth living since one may not survive for long with such a life.
In order for Socrates to create, to his satisfaction, justice in the kallipolis, he devised the Myth of the Metals. This would make everyone content in being in their place in society so that they would not intertwine with the other classes. After creating this, he discovers what civic justice is and later converts this to justice in the human. It is evidently clear that in no way does the Myth of the Metals contradict the definition of justice that Socrates gives in The Republic.
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.