In many societies, including our own, we labeled the meaning of the word “justice” for the sole purpose of maintaining social and political stability and order for the good of many instead of the few. However, what we believe to be just and unjust in regards to what Plato’s Republic explains about what is actually just and unjust are inadvertently blurred from a somewhat conflicting (if not unintended biased) perspective. These concepts of thought originate in a hierarchical group of knowledge: understanding, thought, belief, and imagination (Socrates 511e); most of which we use for measuring the ideal implementation of practical and critical forms of theory. What we portray justice in the United States today mostly consists of both opinionated…
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.…
- He makes Thrasymachus admit that the view he is advancing promotes injustice as a virtue. In this view, life is seen as a continual competition to get more (more money, more power, etc.), and whoever is most successful in the competition has the…
In his ``Rhetoric of Justice'', Aristotle differentiates between two kinds of law: the particular and the universal. The first, he says, is that which an individual community lays down for itself. The second, the universal law, is what Aristotle refers to as ``a natural and universal notion of right and wrong''. Lewis's novel portrays a community which have instituted the first type of law, but there is no adequate sense of community justice being precise and universally correct. Furthermore, Lewis highlights the nature of Artigues' oblivious justice system which innocently supposes man's law to be inextricable from God's will. Though the nature of the social and legal structure ensure the survival and prosperity of Artigues, to the detriment of…
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…
Further on in chapter 2 it discusses that Adeimantus is playing the devil's advocate just like his brother, by stating the reasons why injustice so often appears to be better than justice. He brings up the following points: that the children are poorly taught by parents and educators and also they are poorly represented in poetry and literature. It is said that justice is poorly taught by the parents because even though they tell their children to be just, they defend it only in terms of the good things. Also justice is poorly represented in literature because poets are always complaining about the problems and tribulations of living a just and virtuous life. While on the other hand they are also telling stories about villains who do well and end up unpunished.…
Plato’s Republic begins with a debate on the subject of morality. One by one, Cephalus, Polymarchus, and Thrasymachus put forth their definitions of morality and one by one, they come up short. None survive the merciless scrutiny of the author’s mentor, Socrates.…
Oedipus Rex is full of people searching for justice. Throughout the play Oedipus acts upon what he believes is justice.…
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.…
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 the Ring of Gyges, Glaucon and Socrates argue over what justice really is. They talk about the classes of goods. The first class being some things are good no matter the consequences, such as joy (The Ring of Gyges, Plato). The second class would be things like health and knowledge, things that are desirable for their results, and the third class are things like a job, or exercise, things that are only good for their consequences (The Ring of Gyges, Plato). Glaucon places justice in the second class because he believes people seek justice only for praise and reputation. To prove his point, he tells Socrates the legend of The Ring of Gyges.…
QUESTION #1: After having viewed Harvard Justice.org, Episode #9, do you agree with Aristotle’s perspective? For example, when you look around at our American culture, do you think our government is supporting justice for all? For example, is it fair for a university to consider race or ethnicity as a factor in admissions rather than solely on the basis of merit? Explain your thinking.…
Plato and Aristotle, arguably the most important philosophers of their time, both made attempts to define justice. Being that Aristotle was a student of Plato, their ideas share many similarities. Both viewed justice as the harmonious interaction of people in a society. However, Plato defined his ideal of justice with more usage of metaphysics, invoking his Form of the Good, while Aristotle took a more practical approach, speaking in terms of money and balance. Although Aristotle's ideal of justice may seem superior, upon further inspection, Plato's ideal of justice is the stronger.…
Throughout the back-and-forth debate between Socrates and his comrades on the definition of justice, many questions are raised about the integrity and justice of mankind. Does man practice justice because he truly believes in it? Or perhaps because humans fear the consequences of committing injustice? In Book II, Glaucon attempts to tackle the question and points out 3 kinds of justice: the kind that is good in itself, the kind that is good in itself and its results, and the kind that is good in its results but unpleasant. He then further ventures into these ideas of justice by claiming “the best is to do injustice without paying the penalty; the worst is to suffer it without being able to take revenge” (35). Glaucon invokes the legend of the Ring of Gyges to further emphasize his argument.…
Justice is defined and thought of in many different ways by different cultures in relation to their values. As discussed by Dr. Gorman, the Roman and American cultures share a similar view of justice, in which when someone is wronged; they hold the belief that one should get revenge. This idea is a sort of eye for an eye mentality to which Ghandi wisely stated, “an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind”. This quote in its own way somewhat embodies the values and ideas of the Christian community and the beliefs that they share. Dr. Gorman stated that Roman, Corinthian, and American cultures have the view that revenge is the best way to get retribution, while Christians share the view that one should forgive, love, and suffer through the wrong doing that has happened to them. Another interesting point that Dr. Gorman said in his lecture was the Roman, Corinthian, and Christian communities would take their own people, even neighbors, and previous friends to court to have the wrong done to them righted, however, this is not a cruciform justice. The differences between the two values and ideals really struck home with me because I never really thought about how someone would call themselves a Christian but then would turn around and seek revenge with such a lust that would tear apart strong relationships. The cruciform justice that true, devote Christians practice is one that shows a true forgiveness of another’s trespasses. Another important point that Dr. Gorman makes is that justice and righteousness go hand in hand and that to have those two qualities, one must love God and also their neighbors the same. These are the two most important commandments in the bible and they encompass how a good Christian should live their life. It is the difference between living a life that is purely lived for getting into heaven, and one that is fulfilling and full of a good relationship with God and one’s neighbors. These points made…