Plato's Republic uses dialogue between Socrates and fellow Athenians in order to tease out the complexities of the idea of justice. In Book II, the question of the value of justice is raised, through the dialogue between Glaucon, his brother Adeimantus, and Socrates. Socrates is challenged by the brothers to refute their view on justice, and to explain whether justice is good in and of itself or only for its results. Socrates fails to completely refute Glaucon and Adeimantus' view, by failing to answer one argument and relying on an incorrect premise for another. Glaucon makes the assertion that there are three categories of goods: instrumental, intrinsic, or both. The first category of goods, instrumentally valuable goods, are described …show more content…
Socrates does not prove the premise that health is inherently valuable. He merely takes it at face value. He does not explain how the placement of elements in their “natural relations” makes health intrinsically valuable. Yet Socrates claims justice to be the “health” of the soul and points to this as proof of the inherent value of the notion of justice. The fact that he is operating from an unproven premise (the inherent value of health) undermines his argument. The notion of, if health is valuable and justice is health then justice must be valuable only works if Socrates has definitively argued and proven that health is inherently valuable. Otherwise, his argument is not as sound as it could …show more content…
Sometimes health, though inherently valuable, does not have positive consequences. Take, for example, a tyrant. It may be beneficial for the tyrant to be healthy, but their continuing health is not beneficial for others, as this condition of continuing health allows for the opportunity for more tyranny. So, if health can be consequentially (instrumentally) bad, then the parallel Socrates makes between health and justice (which he views as instrumentally and intrinsically good) is incorrect. If justice is instrumentally and intrinsically good, always, then it cannot be health, which is not always instrumentally (consequentially) good. If the two concepts, health and justice, are fundamentally different, then they cannot be equated and thus held up as proof of the fundamental, intrinsic value of the
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.
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
Socrates states that living is a function of the soul; meaning that only a soul can live or a soul lives better than anything else (1) (Page 42). Anything with a function performs it well by means of its own peculiar virtue and badly by means of its vice or lack of virtue (2) (Page 41).This means that something that has a specific function would do it well because of a certain feature or attribute that it obtains. For example, a chainsaw performs its function of cutting by the virtue of its set of sharp blades and badly by its lack of its set of sharp blades or vice of dull blades. Therefore a soul would live by its virtue. So then it must be asked what is the soul’s virtue? The soul has multiple functions not just living. Since only a soul can take care of things,rule, deliberate, and the like, then another function of a soul is to take care of things,rule, deliberate, and the like (3) (Page 41). Only something with a soul could nurture things such as animals and children, rule over a country state or city, and deliberate what is right and what is wrong and come to a decision based off of the deliberation. The soul performs its function of taking care of things, ruling, deliberating and the like well by means of justice (4) (Page 42).Socrates defines justice as having a control and balance that creates harmony within a soul (Pages 53-54). To perform a
Upon reading Plato, The Trial and Death of Socrates, Socrates strongly held views on the relationship between morality and laws become apparent to the reader. Equally, Socrates makes clear why laws should be followed and why disobedience to the law is rarely justified.
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.
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.
that it is because of the gods that things are as they seem to be. "Do you
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.
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.
He talks about virtue like it is the result of living “The Good Life.” He says, “For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons and your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul” (Slayer). In brief, Socrates is saying that in order to have true “virtue” one needs to be consider where they are in the standards of morality, rather than the standards of material gain (Slayer). Additionally, Socrates also argues, “I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue come money and every other good of man, public as well as private.” He is basically saying that anything worth obtaining in the world is only worth obtaining justly because without “virtue” one will have nothing of value
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.