Justice is often used interchangeably with fairness and has connotations to the divine or natural laws. However, within the ancient Greek text The Republic, by Plato, an in depth discussion concerning the origins and nature of justice take place. A significant contributor to the inquiry of Justice is Glaucon, who would argue that justice is simply a social construction. Secondly, Socrates brings forth the notion that justice as a state of harmony in which each part of the whole performs its allotted duty. Lastly, from The Philosophy of Human Rights, by Patrick Hayden, Cicero views justice within the concept of natural law.
Glaucon seeks an account of what the many believe justice to be, and what its origins are. He states that “justice—[is] …show more content…
The Ring of Gyges is a fictional ring that is able to render its wearer invisible. It is seemingly impossible to find any man of such virtue where “no one could be found, it would seem, of such adamantine temper as to persevere in justice and endure to refrain his hands from the possessions of others and not touch them, though he might with impunity take what he wished even from the marketplace, and enter into houses and lie with whom he pleased, and slay and loose from bonds whomsoever he would” (360b-c). Glaucon would argue that however virtuous someone may appear to be “that no one is just of his own will but only from constraint” (360c). Meaning that without consequence of action “the belief that justice is not his personal good, inasmuch as every man, when he supposes himself to have the power to do wrong, does wrong” (360b).
Socrates defines justice in a unique way, that it is not simply being honest and paying what is owed as Cephalus suggests; or as helping your friends and harming your enemies; and even as Glaucon would argue that justice is simply a social construction but, it is a form of …show more content…
That the virtues of the state or city are extrapolated and also exists within the soul. The virtue of wisdom corresponds with the rational part of the soul in which its role is to govern its counterparts; the spirited and appetitive parts of the soul. Secondly, courage is respective to spirit; its role is to obey the rational part in overseeing the appetitive, where the “spirit preserves in the midst of pains and pleasures the rule handed down by the reason” (442c). Lastly, the appetitive part of the soul is synonymous with the virtue of moderation, “it accepts that the rational part rules over the appetites” (441e-442d). With the identification of the parts of the soul and city, and the corresponding relation between each; injustice must “be a kind of civil war of these three principles, their meddlesomeness” (444b). In describing the opposite, justice must then be harmony within the soul where each part performs its respective role and does not interfere with another. Socrates’ justice is a response to Glaucon’s social construction of justice, in that justice cannot simply be reduced to a social contract created to avoid suffering injustice but is a convergence of many separate entities into the mean; whether it be within the state or the
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The power corrupts any true justice in one’s soul, supporting the view that acquiring worldly pleasures through injustice is favorable and more profitable to men, than toiling and acquiring them through just means (Republic II, 360c, l. 8). Throughout his life, Gyges earned his wages through just service to the king. However, upon discovering the unquestionable power of the ring, he overthrew the system of justice that was meant to enforce fairness, by murdering the king and stealing the throne for himself (360b, ll. 1-2). Glaucon also states that having such power will corrupt one, turning any honest man into a thief and fueling the man’s own greed (360b, ll.
In an attempt to amass an overall consensus of justice being desirable as a benefit to the health of the soul, and the necessity placed on maintaining its ideals as a virtue (as expressed by Socrates to resolve Thrasymachus 's definition); Glaucon extends his argument of justice to include the concept of the Three Kinds of Goods. As explained, all goods can be divided into three classes: as a mere means such as physical labor, as an end akin to joy, and as both a means and an end comparable to maintaining knowledge (book ii). Although an advocate for the belief that justice is coveted both as a means and an end, Glaucon alludes that most individuals classify justice under the first group: justice is no more than a mere means. He continues to elaborate on the idea that justice is viewed as a necessary evil, and that it is only maintained in order
In the Republic, Thrasymachus has rather compelling definition of justice. He says that it is “...nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.” From this definition Thrasymachus constructs a corollary: the stronger use injustice so injustice itself is more powerful than justice. Is justice simply whatever the current rulers decide it should be, whether in a democratic, tyrannical or oligarchical system? Or is there something more to it, as Socrates argues?
I think that there is a fallacy of irrelevance. In the book, Socrates sets out to defend the idea that it is always in one’s best interest to be just and to act justly and he suggests that the just person as one who has a balanced soul will lead one to act justly or why mental health amounts to justice. I feel that justice includes actions in relation to others, it includes considerations of other people’s good, and includes strong motivations not to act unjustly. I believe that Socrates’ defense of justice does not include constraining reasons to think that a person with a balanced soul will refrain from acts that are commonly thought to be unjust like theft, murder, and adultery.
If the opportunity arose, where no consequences were given for someone’s actions, do you think that individual will still commit an unfavorable action such as killing for his own personal need? In “The Ring of Gyges” the disposition of justice is called into question. As humans continue to live we must contemplate the true driving force for our morality. A discussion between Socrates and Glaucon is one main focal point into explaining the differences in how humans truly established their morality. Glaucon believes humans are restrained by consequences and human’s happiness comes from being an unjust person rather than Socrates’ belief of being just truly leads to happiness.
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 IV of Plato’s Republic, Socrates and his peers come to the conclusion that a city is going to need people who have an understanding of what justice should be. Socrates at the end of Book IV can make the difference between individual, political, and social justice. He knows that individual and political justice is so much in common because they both weigh in heavy on truth, honor, and appetitive soul. That appetitive soul is an element that helps the secure the just community with love and support.
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
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.
The Republic, by Plato provides us with four different definitions of justice which are given by the four characters Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, and Glaucon. According to Cephalus, the definition of justice includes the laws and repaying one’s creditors. Socrates doesnot agree to the idea that of repayment of creditors as always to be a good idea. The second person to define Justice was Polymarchus, the son of Cephalus. In his opinion, justice is defined as helping your friends and harming your rivals.
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.
In the Republic, Plato confers with other philosophers about the true definition of justice. Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus relay their theories on justice to Plato, when he inquires as to what justice is. Cephalus believes only speaking the truth and paying one’s debts is the correct definition of justice (The Republic, Book I). However, Plato refutes this with an example of a friend who has lost his wits and would be caused harm by repayment of a debt. This leads to Polemarchus’ view on justice, doing harm to one’s enemies and helping one’s friends.
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.
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.