In this essay, I will be presenting both Plato and Aristotle 's views regarding justice. First, I will present how Plato defines justice and just laws. Second, I will explain how Aristotle does the same, as well as noting the differences between their ideas. I will conclude with which Philosopher had the greater argument and which factors made the argument superior to the other.
Plato 's idea of justice is never intentionally harming others and always following laws as they are. A true ruler is someone who rules for the benefit of others and not for self-gain. For instance, by choosing to live in Athens there is a social contract in place; which means residents are expected to follow all laws set by the rulers and in return they have
…show more content…
It is important to understand that virtue is using rationality in a positive way in order to flourish as a person. In order for a law to be considered just, it is essential the law is equal for everyone, which results in a balance. The importance of just laws lie in the fact that with equality promotes potential and everyone should obtain the chance to flourish and reach Eudaimonia. By establishing that justice itself is a balance, the lack of justice would be considered an injustice, and "too much justice" is impossible considering a person simply cannot be "too perfect". Human beings are instinctively social people, which causes escaping the city/state an impossible feat; in order to progress further to choices concerning laws, it is important to consider that people choose to perform virtuous acts; however you should understand why you are performing those acts for it to be considered virtuous. Another large part of understanding of justice would be to consider a person 's choices along with actions as opposed to the laws themselves. To be virtuous as well as follow laws, a person should be capable of applying reason, which leads to questioning voluntary and involuntary actions. A voluntary action is something you chose to do fully understanding the consequences of your actions. An involuntary action is an externally forced action, such as spilling a …show more content…
I believe Aristotle has the stronger argument in terms of defining justice is. It is important to consider whether a law is just or unjust as opposed to Plato 's argument that we should follow all laws regardless; if we were choose to solely follow all laws and the consequence of that law caused harm to another human being we would unintentionally be harming others, which would make it harder for us to be virtuous. I also believe everyone should be held responsible for their own actions, in addition to using Aristotle 's definition of voluntary action, we choose to follow laws which leads to the world being a more desirable place to live. As we have seen with previous laws, such as slavery, if we fail to question the validity and consequence of the law, but voluntarily follow it blindly it can result in issues for years to come; similar to slavery, despite it being illegal today, prior legality negatively affects minorities in our society. If we fail to question unjust laws and believe everything we are told by the government, we are failing to think for ourselves. According to Aristotle, every action we perform is self-interested, if we are unable to think for ourselves and fail to question imbalances how will we continue to flourish? That being said, without applying reason to the topic of justice we, in turn, forfeit our rights as a citizen as well as those
the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame
Justice is one of the most important moral and political concepts. The word comes from the Latin word jus, meaning right or law. According to Kelsen (2000), Justice is primarily a possible, but not a necessary, quality of a social order regulating the mutual relations of men As a result of its importance, prominent and knowledgeable people have shared their views on justice and what it means and how the state is involved in its administration. The likes of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke among others have written extensively on the concept of justice.
The influential figures of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle ventured into the depths of human existence, exploring fundamental questions and challenging conventional wisdom. Their ideas, presented in works such as Plato's "The Republic" and Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics," continue to shape contemporary philosophy. The philosophical legacy of Classical Greece has played a crucial role in the development of moral and ethical frameworks in Western societies. For instance, the concept of justice, extensively examined by ancient Greek philosophers, continues to be a cornerstone of modern legal systems. The principles of fairness, equality, and the rule of law, deeply rooted in Greek philosophical thought, form the basis of the legal systems in many Western countries (Calhoun,
I believe that Plato believes that people are inherently good and they will do what is morally right and just for society. They will earn their right to power and ensure fairness for all to prevent the tyrants from trying to take control. Plato mentions three main arguments regarding
People should pursue justice, which is to help order the society. Once Francis Bacon said, “If we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us.” It means that if we do not maintain justice, then we will lose everything including life because of injustice. It can destroy us and the whole society. I strongly agree with this quote because people are often in danger because they do not follow justice.
Glaucon claims that the sole reason one would pursue justice is if he or she is willed into in by his or her lack of power. P1- Some people lack the power to do injustice while others have the power to do injustice (Group 3 & Collaboration, P1-P2). P2-
Throughout the history of mankind, society has defined itself by law and the order that law creates. “Laws are the binding rules of conduct or action which the vast majority of the society has to abide”. Justice on the other hand is rather an abstract concept. There is no right or wrong definition of justice, but is rather agreed upon the concept of being fair and equal. Many would assume that the sole purpose of law is to establish justice, which seems like a wonderful philosophical theory but is slightly difficult to follow.
Political activists and philosophers alike have a challenging task of determining the conditions under which citizens are morally entitled to go against the law. Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr. had different opinions on the obligation of the citizens in a society to obey the law. Although they were willing to accept the legal punishment, King believed that there are clear and definable circumstances where it would be appropriate, and sometimes mandatory, to purposely disobey unjust laws. Socrates did not. Socrates obeyed what he considered to be an unjust verdict because he believed that it was his obligation, as a citizen of Athens, to persuade or obey its Laws, no matter how dire the consequences.
Socrates believes that justice benefits the just, but also benefits the city (other people) too. He is faced with a seemingly simple choice, escape Athens or remain in prison and be sentenced to death. Socrates’ central argument against escaping his circumstances is twofold. First, Socrates argues that “one must never do wrong.” (49b)
In Book 1 of the republic, by Plato, we are introduced to two central figures in the argument of justice, Socrates and Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus claims that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates then asks if his understanding, that what is beneficial to the stronger is just and must be beneficial to the weaker people, to which Thrasymachus replies that no, this is not so. He explains that justice is that which obtains the advantage of the stronger.
According to Gloria Steinem, “Law and justice are not always the same”. This quote means that following the law may not always mean justice is being served. Laws are rules and guidelines that are set up to govern behavior. Laws set out standards, procedures
What is justice? This is the crucial question that Plato attempts to answer in his dialogue, The Republic. He conjures up an allegory that justice can be found in a person, and a person can represent a city. Thus, his entire dialogue focuses on this ‘just’ city and the mechanics of how the city would operate. His dialogue covers a myriad of topics about justice in addition to the human soul, politics, goodness and truth.
Plato’s republic aims to describe a just state, and in turn a just individual consistently throughout the text. By analogising the justice of the state and the justice of the individual, Plato attempts to demonstrate that a just society will breed just individuals. However, there are certain loop holes within his thought process that can lead one to wonder whether or not his ideas are pragmatic, and could function within a real societal structure- and if human beings given their inherently selfish nature, can adopt the traits necessary in order to achieve justice and the ideal state described in the Republic. Plato described the human soul as a “tripartite soul” where three main qualities seen in the human being, will also be reflected in the three classes of the ideal state. Reason is the highest of the three main qualities, and it forms the class of rulers and guardians.
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates comes to the conclusion that we need to have a strong just society that is in the right order. In Books IV, V, and VI, Socrates explains that every society needs to be built on justice, everyone needs to have an occupation, and what a male and female household should look like. These are my prerequisites to what I consider essential to create a just society. Because without these qualities in an established society, you can hurt an entire civilization. And to Socrates argument, with an ideal king will come forms of co-operated citizens of a city.
Plato’s argument begins with an investigation into the meaning of justice. He begins by deriving a definition through the analysis of a city. The dialogue implies that he will use this definition to locate the justice of the individual later on (Plato’s Republic—Selections 3). Plato’s ideal city originates as a way to satisfy human needs. A population will adopt the Principle of Specialization (in which each person performs the task to which they are best suited) to maximize the production of goods and meet the needs of the community (Brown sec 4.1).