What is justice? Today, where it is common for people to only look out for themselves, justice is an extremely important tool. But what exactly is justice? What is right, what is wrong, and who decides that? To find an accurate definition, we as a society should not just focus on one opinion, but the views of many. Similar to how our society is today, the society in The Republic, lived the same, struggling to determine what the correct definition of justice was, and how to pursue the right answer. In the paper, I will be discussing all aspects of Plato’s Republic, including the Philosopher King and his nature, and justice in that time.…
In this paper we will show that Glaucon and Thrasymachus' positions on justice are entirely different. We argue that Thrasymachus despite his slippage and confusion between a traditional and immoralist definition of justice, is really intending to illustrate a political system ruled by a rational-minded and exploitative tyrant. On the other hand Glaucon clearly presents justice as a necessary evil originating out of a social contract constructed by the weak of society. He then challenges Socrates to prove to him that the life of a just man is better than the life of an unjust man.…
If a man was not subjected to law or punishment would he choose to do what is considered just? In Plato’s The Republic, Glaucon, one of Socrates’ students, states a common view on justice. Justice is simply a lesser evil when compared to the two extremes which are suffering injustice without power to retaliate and doing injustice without suffering consequences. According to Glaucon, all men are inherently unjust, and only do what is just when forced to do so by law. This view of justice can be seen throughout history when leaders, like Nero, do unjust actions for their own personal gain simply because they are free from any consequences.…
What is justice is a question that has plagued philosophers since the time of Plato when he wrote The Republic to present day. In the book, Plato uses the dialectic, between Socrates and other Athenians like Polemarchus, Cephalus, and Glacuon, to try and find the definition of justice. Through the voice of Glaucon, Plato defines justice as a compromise of sorts between advantage and fear, and injustice as the things that we wouldn’t…
In his philosophy, Plato places a large emphasis on the importance of the idea of justice. This emphasis can be seen especially in his work ‘The Republic’ where, through his main character Socrates, he attempts to define the nature of justice and to justify this definition. One of the methods used by Socrates to strengthen or rather explain his argument on justice is through his famous city-soul analogy, where a comparison between a just city and a just soul/individual is made. Through this analogy, Socrates attempts to explain the nature of justice, how it is the virtue of the soul and is therefore intrinsically valuable to the individual, but it becomes apparent in the analysis and evaluation of the analogy that there may have been several purposes behind it. Inconsistencies within the analogy itself also raise questions to the validity in Plato’s definition and justification of justice.…
Socrates meets with some of his friends and begins discussing the meaning of justice and whether the just life is better than the unjust life. First, they contemplate the meaning of justice. Cephalus stated that justice is as simple as telling the truth and returning what you receive, Polemarchus stated that justice is giving each his due, and Thrasymachus stated that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates proves each of them wrong and embarks on a discussion to find out what true justice is, and to find out whether the just man is truly happier than the unjust man, or vice versa.…
When Socrates is asked to defend justice on its own, but not for the reputation that it brings, he suggests that justice should be found in the city before starting to use the analogy of finding it in an individual. He then uses an example of a just city that aims at satisfying the basic human wants. Some citizens enter into political welfare as no one is independent. Nevertheless,…
He must do this regardless of the opinion of the majority or possible consequences for himself; he must act only in accordance to the opinion of the few wise, knowledgeable men who understand what is justice, and the laws of the State. Unfortunately, in all of the dialogues the author of this essay has read5, Socrates never clearly explains what ‘the laws’ really are — they remain a sort of abstraction, a divine essence of justice. However, this does not invalidate our definition of a champion of…
The bottom line of Thrasymarchus’ argument is that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates agrees that being just is advantageous. He continues to persuade Thrasymarchus, however, that justice is not only advantageous for the stronger, but for everyone. Glaucon refuses to accept Thrasymarchus’ capitulation to Socrates’ arguments. Glaucon’s view is that Socrates has only highlighted the positive consequences of being just and not the intrinsic value of justice itself. By Socrates’ logic, Glaucon argues, the only value of being just is the good reputation and rewards it leads to. If this were the case, people would soon realize that they should not want to be just, but to be believed to be just, Glaucon argues. What is justice, really, without reputation?…
In Book Two of The Republic, Glaucon tests Socrates view of justice. Socrates believes that “injustice is never more profitable than justice” (31). With this, he describes how the good life is determined by whether you are just or unjust. Socrates explains how justice is observed through the genuine acts of human character; justice is evaluated by how morally right one is. Glaucon however challenges this idea, as he wishes to be shown why being just is desirable. He trusts that we as humans naturally act just because the scare of punishment. Glaucon reasons that if the fear of getting penalized was removed, if punishment was not at all possible, then we would do anything we wanted whenever we wanted to without hesitation.…
1. What is the difference between a. and a. Both Socrates and Glaucon ultimately agree that it is better to be actually just and seemingly unjust than it is to be actually unjust but seemingly just. Their reasons for holding this position are because people just have control over themselves. They are able to maintain dominion over their desires, to avoid self indulgence in evil desires, and to choose good things. This is something the unjust person loses no matter how just he may seem.…
In the Republic written by Plato, Glaucon presented an argument concerning “the nature and origin of justice”. This argument has caused many beliefs and interpretations from Glaucon about justice. Glaucon presents his arguments by stating the four premises and what each one of them mean. His first premise is “It is by nature good to harm”. This premise is broken up into different meanings by nature, being referred to character individuality, good being referred to an enjoyable experience and harm as a physical or mental injury. This premise shows how being harmed can be beneficial or a good repercussion, through different experiences in life. Overall, the conclusion of this premise shows how justice plays a typical role in society to prohibit people in doing unjust deeds and disrupting the structure of society.…
In Plato's Republic, Socrates goes to great lengths to explain and differentiate between the ideas of opinion and knowledge. Throughout society, most common men are lovers of sights and sounds. "Lovers of sights and sounds like beautiful sounds, colors, shapes, and everything fashioned out of them, but their thought is unable to see and embrace the nature of the beautiful itself (Republic 476b)." The few who do recognize the beautiful itself are followers of the sight of truth, the philosophers.…
Before I started reading Plato's the Republic, I was loathe to admit that reading those philosophy books were gonna really change how I view myself. It was totally a waste of time to read these vague and complicated books. As I went on reading the republic, I saw many similar things that still existed in our society. In the book, Plato prescribes severe dictates concerning the cultural life of the city. He rules out all poverty, with the exception of hymns to the gods and eulogies for the famous, and places restraints on painting and architecture. Does this look like "Cultural Revolution" that happened in China in late 60s in twentieth century? There are differences though, which is how the leaders see the results of the destruction of human civilization. Plato expresses regret at these aesthetic sacrifices, he feels they must be made for the sake of education, which transforms the unhealthy luxurious city into a pure and just city. However, our great leader didn't see any ruinous effects on our society until he reached the end of his life.…
In his book “the Republic”, Plato tried to build up an ideal society. He divided the ideal society into three classes: rulers, guardians, and workers. As long as each class of people lived harmonious and did their responsibilities, the society would become stable and prosperous. How did make people live with harmony? Obviously, the core issue of “the republic” is justice. Justice is a proper, harmonious relationship among the people in the three classes. Plato suggested that three virtues of individual which were wisdom, courage, and moderation would make individual person just. Also, in order to get the justice, Plato used the “Gold lie” to placate unhappiness with one’s place in life.…