Nathaniel Goodman PHIL 201-037 10/29/15
Justice, Rights, and Laws
The central issue discussed in this section of the book is: justice, rights, and laws. This section discussed the different approaches to these three issues. The first area, justice is broken down by Thyrasmachus, Plato, and Aristotle. Thyrasmachus takes the approach that what is just, is decided by the stronger party. On the other hand Plato and Aristotle view justice as what is best for the overall parties. Their idea behind this theory is, when all parties are doing their part there is justice. The rights portion of the section is broken down into positive and negative rights, and moral and legal rights. The laws portion of the section is split into two theories; natural
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
Plato contests this view on justice because he believes doing harm to anyone would be an injustice. This theory leads to their conclusion the just man is one who is useful. Thrasymachus refers to justice in an egoistical manner, saying “justice is in the interest of the stronger” (The Republic, Book I). He believes injustice is virtuous and wise and justice is vice and ignorance, but Socrates disagrees with this statement as believes the opposing view. As a result of continual rebuttals against their arguments,
Plato regarded justice as the true principle of social life. Plato in his day found a lot of evil in society. He saw unrighteousness rampant and injustice enthroned.
Socrates believes that justice is the best life to live, but Glaucon is not satisfied by this answer and instead creates an improved defense of Thrasymachus’ argument that life of injustice is better than living a life of justice. Glaucon argues that people are just because it is convenient, it is a title that people have been taught to be, however, it is much easier to be unjust than just. Justice is set up like a competition in which the result is merely a compromise of the best and worst of a group of individuals. What constitutes something as just or not lies in the consequence. Justice is merely a system which is instrumentally valuable.
According to Socrates if three of the first descriptions are found in a state, then justice will be easily found. He goes on to saying how the definition for justice includes principles of some one practicing one thing only, and that thing should only be to which he can naturally adapt to. Justice also incorporates the concept one doing his own business. Socrates outlines how injustice is done to the state if one causes harm to his own city, so the one who handles his own business is doing just to the state is what defines justice. This definition differs when applied to an individual because when one only is practices temperance and self mastery to gain personal achievements by pushing lower class down, walking over the poor and using wealth and power to gain control and wealth is doing unjust to the people, where as those who treat others equally and fairly are the ones who portray the virtue of being just.
Author's name and Qualifications The Bill of Rights is a formal document that has the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution; so the author of the ninth amendment was James Madison who wrote the Bill of Rights. On June 8, 1789, James Madison went to the U.S. Congress and proposed a series of changes to the new Constitution. He argued that the Constitution wouldn’t be complete unless amendments were added that would only protected an individuals' rights. One of his qualifications was that Madison had gone to preparatory school and then to college at Princeton.
Definition and Description of Procedural Justice Procedural justice is the act involved in decision making. It incorporates the process of involving transparency and fairness in making decisions. The incorporation of justice in this process is equally essential it entails that all parties allowed to give their views before decision are made concerning a given matter. Some theories state that restorative and distributive justice might not be met but for as long as there is a fair and justice procedure, there is always the possibility of having outcomes that are equitable (Jason &Tyler, 2003).
Socrates argues each is made of 3 essential parts; “a rational part, a spirited part and an appetitive or passionate part.” (Pojman & Tramel, 2009, p. 64) These three interrelated parts and the harmony that is produced when each part does what is correct by nature is what Socrates defines as justice. As each part of the soul is to maintain harmony by doing what is correct by nature each man is to maintain harmony by doing what is correct by his nature. “…that is was right for one who is by nature cobbler to cobble and to do nothing else…” (Pojman & Tramel, 2009, p.
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.
One of the main focuses in the Republic of Plato is to prove the value of justice. In Books VIII and IX, tyranny and the soul of the tyrant are discussed at great length with the ultimate goal of proving why it is worthwhile to be just. The portrait of the tyrant is developed in such detail to acts as a metaphor for injustice, while the true philosopher represents justice. By portraying the tyrant in a way that makes clear his faults, Plato is able to demonstrate perfectly the need for justice in both the city and the soul. Through careful analysis of the tyrannical soul, Plato contrasts the philosopher king and the tyrant and in doing so reveals the role that justice plays in the distinguishing between them.
In The Republic: Book 1 by Plato, the main argument and discussion being told is the definition of justice and the different perspectives and interpretations. One of the characters in the novel Thrasymachus, an angry guy who thinks everyone is wrong represents the original and analytical explanation. He defines justice as “the interest of the stronger” suggesting that power is correct. Thrasymachus believed that every person acts for themselves and attempts to get what they can but however only the toughest will get what they want. A popular example that portrays this understanding of the definition of justice is how a government serves the interest of its people.
The mores that one is instilled with is a complex concept to which we do not give much thought to in a day to day basis. In Plato’s The Republic, Plato dives into the inner workings of justice and other moral matters through the voice of Socrates, who serves as a character to give the reader a distinct perspective in the narrative. Throughout the text, Plato touches on many issues in Ancient Greek society in order to create a utopist city. Along the agenda, Plato emphasizes the quarrel of the rudimentary benefits of truth vs. lies, and which one of the two would conquer more with justice. In the transpiration of the debate, Plato convinces the reader that the truth is a closer fit to the principles of justice through a fallible initial argument, and analogical points, emphasizing the truth all the way from the tyrant to the slave.
In The Republic, Plato emphasizes the point of justice and just what it is and what it means to others. As Socrates and the other philosophers speak of the matter, issues arise and ideas surface as well as arguments about what it really means, and if there is a straightforward meaning to the concept of justice. Justice in definition and justice in reality end up differently in certain
Men make laws to instill order in a society and prevent chaos in any shape or form. Naturally, laws will always be somewhat unjust because it is impossible to consistently construct laws that directly and equally benefit all members of a society. There will always be a majority that makes the laws and a minority that has to obey the laws. Although laws are usually the standard of morality by which we live by, they must be disobeyed in certain situations. These situations are, but not limited to, an undemocratic formation of aforementioned laws, laws that are inherently unjust according to human law which can be synonymous with God’s law.
Imagine you as a twelve year old kid living in the streets of Paris, France. As you are slowly dying of starvation the sweet scent of apple pie from a nearby window catches your fancy. While the streets are constantly being watched by guards, you sneak up to the pie and in a flash you steal it while getting caught by a nearby officer. You get sent to prison for 25 years doing hard labor. Do you want to be marginalized by society?