Plato's Republic is centered on one simple question: is it always better to be just than unjust? This is something that Socrates addresses both in terms of political communities and the individual person. Plato argues that being just is advantageous to the individual independent of any societal benefits that the individual may incur in virtue of being just. I feel as if Plato’s argument is problematic. There are not enough compelling reasons to make this argument. 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 …show more content…
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. Thus, Plato presents Socrates defending mental health rather than …show more content…
The just person’s soul entails motive for certain kinds of objects the most important of which is knowledge. Socrates describes the hardship and extreme effort required to gain knowledge of the forms and the form of the good, thus the just person will seek learning and not spend time to take care of the satisfaction of desires that typically lead to unjust actions. This approach to unite the gap between a just soul and just actions may have some drawbacks. One negative aspect may be that several unjust actions may be motivated by desires that are compatible with the desire for knowledge. For example, why wouldn’t a person with a great fascination for knowledge steal a book if it would contribute to their
In the Republic, Plato gives an extensive theory of justice. Three classes exist, rulers (legislators/deliberates), auxilaries (enforcers), and producers. What God has mixed into one's own soul decides, whether it is gold, silver, or iron/bronze, decides what class one belong's in. Each one of these classes has the potential to best develop a
However, we can find in his next objections aspects that may be controversial. Socrates begins saying that whether a just man would act to overcome another just man. Both had the same opinion that just man may consider it right to overcome an unjust man. Proceeding, what the unjust man will do is overcome and benefit from everyone and anyone. In this situation, Socrates would relate the unjust/just men with the craftsmen.
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,
Knowledge is both good and clever, and per Socrates, because both knowledge and justice are the same in one regard they are the same in being both good and clever. Though Socrates and Thrasymachus agree to this it can be stated that the division fallacy and the no-sequitur fallacies were made. By closing that what’s right about one part of Socrates argument, it must be applied to all that are of the like. Moreover, though its agreed that both the premises are true, the conclusion does not necessarily follow. Applying these formal logic, it is affirmed that Socrates’ argument for justice being wiser than injustice is
Plato was highly against the collapsing conditions in Athens. Justice is to mind/do one’s own business. To Plato, justice is to be considered to one’s happiness. The idea is to fulfill one’s proper role without overstepping it by doing what is conflicting to one’s nature. In the just state, each individual has a certain set of duties, which are obligations to the community.
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.
Also through the conversation he had with Glaucon and Adeimantus, they both accept Socrates’ assumptions about the nature and aids of justice at the end of Book IV. Which this turn meant they never responded to the argument and ignore they cue to refute Socrates’ claim on justice which can cause the argument to be misleading because of their absence in questioning his argument. Their failure to questions Socrates’ assumption may have contain some drawback to their search of such justice. Socrates’ attempts to define the word justice it meet with a roadblock because they it is not possible to obtain through such needs. However, he may have mentioned the step to obtaining such justice, but evidently they can also downfall back to where they started form.
There are instances that Socrates describes the actions that a just person will or would not do. This list of the do’s and don’ts of a just individual is long and at times seems to be an incoherent jumble of individual thoughts that may not fit together as good as Socrates may have thought or hoped. Socrates explains that there is no way that an unjust act will make the actor of the unjust act better off. This seems like a specifically wrong in the sense that I can commit fraud and steal millions of dollars. The act itself is unjust, but it seems that I am in a better position than before preforming the unjust act.
In the Apology, the trial of Socrates brings about questions regarding the legitimacy of god(s) and the corruption in educating the youth. As the speaker for his own defense, Socrates understands that the only mode of proving his innocence is through forward and honest speech to highlight his own position of wisdom and his impact on the people around him. Although Socrates is ultimately found guilty, he tells the jurymen to “keep this one truth in mind, that a good man cannot be harmed either in life or in death…”1 I argue that the goodness in Socrates is highlighted by his ignorance towards the welfare of his own being. Socrates did not intentionally choose nor train for the life he was given. It is under these circumstances that he was found charged with worshipping other gods and corrupting the youth, to which the townspeople did not
Applying the concept of justice to a bigger object would have allowed Socrates to get rid of the problems he could not solve when talking about the individual. Also, this helped Socrates to see if making a just city was even possible. It is very hard to come up with a just society; but, his efforts are applauded. However, certain aspects of his ideal city would cause problems in today’s society. Socrates’ idea of how people should be divided and have children in the Kallipolis is something that would cause an uproar.
In “Plato’s Gorgias” Socrates debates with fellow philosophers, Polus, Callicles, Chaerephon and Gorgias, of ancient Greece over rhetoric, justice, and power. During these debates, Socrates makes a claim to Polus that it is better to suffer injustices rather than to commit injustice because the positive and negative consequences that come along with committing and suffering injustices. This claim by Socrates that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit injustice is pretty easy to comprehend once all the parts are analyzed. At first, this idea seems crazy that it is actually beneficial to suffer injustice and wrong-doing.
aligns with reason and resists the desires of the appetite. It is in this part of the soul where the courage to be good is found. In the unjust soul, the spirit ignores reason and instead aligns with the appetitive desires, manifesting as the demand for the pleasures of the body. Plato asserts that the wise and just soul allows reason to govern the other parts, while the unwise and unjust soul allows conflict between the parts.12 Just as there is the appetitive part of the soul—the largest part of the soul—there is the productive class, or the workers, who have souls of bronze and account for the largest part of the population.13 This class includes the general population of laborers, plumbers, masons, carpenters, merchants, and farmers.
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.
This is similar to a thief character from Hollywood that gets admiration from the audience because the cool scoundrel does not care if they get in trouble. Also, the cool scoundrel ends up benefiting more from being a criminal. Nevertheless, this example should be viewed as an outlier or even fits the mold of the person’s soul having a sort of “cancer”. Not many people are getting praise for being a criminal in reality and not very many fit the frame of the cool scoundrel. Consequently, Socrates explanation of what justice is more convincing than
Little Johnny runs up to his parents going a hundred miles an hour. He rambles off a variety of questions as his curiosity of the world overcomes him. He wants to know how things work and why they function that way. In a way, little Johnny could be compared to Plato. However, Plato goes beyond the superficial questions into deep, philosophical thinking.