–
BOOK I: WHAT ARE THE CURRENT VIEWS ON JUSTICE?
–
This introductory book raises the fundamental issue of the entire
work: What is justice? Four views of justice are examined: 1.
justice is speaking the truth and paying one’s debts; 2. justice is
helping one’s friends and harming one’s enemies; 3. justice is to
the advantage of the stronger; and 4. injustice is more profitable
than justice.
–
SPEAKING THE TRUTH AND PAYING ONE’S DEBTS (327a-331d)
–
Many Athenians are celebrating the introduction of a new goddess
in Piraeus, the port of Athens and the center of the democratic party.
Socrates and Glaucon are returning from the festivities when
Polemarchus sees them. He insists that they come to his home for
some conversation with his friends. Socrates is persuaded. He
cannot, it seems, resist this opportunity to discuss philosophy with a
group of noble youth.
The Essay on Social justice in a criminal justice organization
... implementing social justice in criminal justice organization it is necessary to differentiate social justice from criminal justice. The social justice system is ... might be unacceptable by society. Thus social justice system contradicts criminal justice system in such cases (Falconer, 2006). ... This would foster humanitarian considerations in the criminal justice system, reduce the time and cost for the ...
Polemarchus’ father, Cephalus, is in the house. Socrates sees how
old he has grown and wants to know whether old age is a difficult part
of life. Cephalus says that he is glad to have escaped the “mad
masters” of bodily pleasures and is now content. But he quickly adds
that if he had not cultivated a good character he would be unable to
enjoy old age. Then Socrates poses several rather crude questions:
Do you think you endure old age easily because you are wealthy? Is
acquiring wealth really the important thing in life? Socrates, who
is penniless by choice, implies that men like Cephalus often forget
about the conditions that make their kind of life possible.
Cephalus admits that his wealth makes it possible for him to live
a well-balanced life. He does not have to deceive others, nor is he in
debt to any god or any man. Socrates seizes on these remarks to talk
about justice. He asks Cephalus if he means that justice- good conduct
in relation to others- is simply telling the truth and honoring
one’s debts. This is precisely what Cephalus, the successful
businessman, means. Because of his wealth he can die contented, his
duties fulfilled. Thus, for Cephalus justice is a matter of
self-interest, but also his view agrees with the laws of the city
and with the traditional religious beliefs.
Socrates’ objection to Cephalus is quite simple: Aren’t there
times when one should not tell the truth or repay debts? For
example, if a man loaned you a gun, then became insanely jealous and
asked you to return his gun so he could shoot his wife, should you
return his weapon? Because Cephalus’ definition of justice does not
hold up in all cases, Socrates says that it is not a good definition.
Suddenly Cephalus decides that he must leave; there are yet more
debts to be paid to the gods. He refuses to be drawn into a
The Essay on Analysis Of Thrasymachus Justice Unjust Man
... Cephalus and his son Polemarchus are unsuccessful in providing Socrates with an adequate definition of justice, Thrasymachus presents himself annoyed with the dialogue between Socrates and Polemarchus, ... fearful of the repercussions of his actions; While the unjust man is not fearful of these repercussions because he is stronger ...
philosophical discussion, one that might threaten his cherished
beliefs.
Cephalus’ definition, like the ones of Polemarchus and
Thrasymachus that follow, is found wanting. However, from each of
the definitions presented in Book I something is learned that will
be reflected in the principle of justice Socrates develops later.
–
HELPING FRIENDS AND HARMING ENEMIES (331e-336a)
–
After Cephalus leaves, the discussion becomes more serious and
more complex. Polemarchus carries on his father’s argument. But unlike
his father he is not concerned with the role of justice in religious
matters. Instead, Polemarchus relies on authorities other than the
gods or the laws. He borrows a maxim from the poet Simonides-
justice is “giving every man his due.” Socrates confesses that he
doesn’t know what the poet means, and asks, “What is it that is due,
and to whom?” He knows, for instance, what the functions of such
crafts as medicine and cooking are. But what is the function of the
craft of justice, if indeed it is a craft? Polemarchus says that
justice is benefiting one’s friends and harming one’s enemies. At
last, Socrates has a clear statement that he can systematically
examine.
Socrates’ examination of Polemarchus’ definition can be divided into
three parts: 1. a look at how one can benefit friends (332d-334b);
2. an attempt to define “friend” (334c-335b); and 3. a criticism of
the view that a just man can do harm (335c-336a).
–
1. Socrates asks Polemarchus to explain in what ways justice can
be helpful and harmful. Through a series of leading questions- Is
The Essay on The Views of Justice
Plato’s theory brings out justice as an outcome of the whole man and how he affects those around him. It is curbing the moral, emotional and spiritual decay of a person and springing some form of holiness in a man. On the other hand, Cephalus, an old yet very rich attributes justice to morality or doing right. Cephalus points out that justice is speaking the truth to your neighbor and paying ...
the just man more useful than the farmer in producing crops? Than
the builder in constructing houses? and so on- Socrates leads
Polemarchus to the absurd conclusion that justice must be useless. And
Socrates pursues this line of reasoning to yet another absurdity.
Because justice, according to Polemarchus’ definition, appears to be
the craft of keepers of things not in use (money and property), and
because good keepers are in a position to be the best thieves, justice
appears to be the craft of thieving, to the benefit, of course, of
one’s friends.
2. Polemarchus protests. Socrates concedes that maybe his problem is
not knowing what Polemarchus means by “friend.” Polemarchus responds
that friends are those who we think are good and helpful to us. But,
Socrates asks, can we be mistaken about who our friends, and
enemies, are? If so, we may be helping or harming the wrong people,
which could not be justice. A contradiction is reached: justice can
both help and harm friends. Polemarchus is forced to be more precise
about what he means by “friend.” He says “that the man who both
seems and is good is the friend.
3. At this point, Socrates focuses on the crucial aspect of his
quarrel with Polemarchus’ definition. Surely it cannot be the function
of justice to harm anyone at all. Don’t we consider justice to be an
excellence of character? And no excellence- whether that of horses
or humans- is ever achieved through destructive means. The function of
justice is to improve human nature. Whatever else it may be, justice
is a form of goodness that, by its very nature, cannot participate
in anything injurious to someone’s character.
–
——————————————————————
The Essay on The Criminal Justice System
Webster’s Dictionary defines social construct as, “a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is ‘constructed’ through cultural or social practice. ” (About. com, 2009, p. 1) It would be similar to cliques in high school: jocks, brains, misfits, and cheerleaders would all interact within their own group and ...
NOTE: The method of argumentation in this section is worth noting
carefully. Socrates’ discussion with Polemarchus is a superb example
of what is sometimes called the Socratic method. Said to be invented
by Socrates (and, obviously, named for him), the Socratic method is
a philosophical technique for discovering knowledge through question
and answer. Socrates, claiming to have no knowledge, encourages others
to answer a general question. Here the question is “What is
justice?” He then proceeds to show the inadequacies of each definition
by producing counterexamples, that is, by producing examples that
expose the biased nature or the narrow scope or the outright falsity
of a definition. These exercises in thinking are not entirely
negative. The ultimate goal is always to discover that which is
true, good, universal.
—————————————————————-
–
THE ADVANTAGE OF THE STRONGER (336b-347e)
–
Thrasymachus roars “like a wild beast” into the discussion. He
angrily accuses Socrates and Polemarchus of talking rubbish- all
this question and answer business! He wants to know why Socrates
does not just say what he means. Thrasymachus, a sophist, likes to
give long speeches without being interrupted by questions. Any other
form of teaching, he believes, shows weakness.
This scene provides comic relief from the seriousness of the
preceding discussion. Socrates describes himself as trembling and
frightened by Thrasymachus’ outburst. But you know better. Socrates is
setting Thrasymachus up for the kill.
The long argument of this section can be divided into four parts: 1.
The Term Paper on Rulers Interest Thrasymachus Socrates Justice
... the ruler. Confusion lies in Thrasymachus's argument; can Plato adequately respond to Thrasymachus Inconsistency creeps into Thrasymachus's argument, a) that Justice is ... assume that the Just man has a better life. Thus, Thrasymachus could have used Socrates' own argument to forward his ... the claim that the unjust man has a better life than the just man. Socrates answer is unsatisfactory; it leaves ...
an attempt to arrive at a precise definition of “ruler” (337d-341b);
2. a comparison between leadership and other crafts (341c-342e); 3.
a speech by Thrasymachus on justice (343a-344c); and 4. a discussion
on why rulers choose to rule (344d-347e).
–
1. Socrates begins his calm, methodical attack on the snarling
Thrasymachus by luring the sophist into presenting his own view on
justice. But first Thrasymachus wants to be paid for his
information. The young men, not wanting to be denied a good fight,
agree to put up the money.
Like Polemarchus before him, Thrasymachus thinks that the notion
of justice can be summed up in a few words. He says “the just is
nothing else but the advantage of the stronger.” As is the
philosopher’s fashion, Socrates inquires into the meaning of
Thrasymachus’ definition. Thus begins a lively discussion, again
exemplifying the Socratic method, on what is and is not to the
advantage of the stronger.
Socrates and Thrasymachus agree that the “stronger” are those who
rule and establish law, and that being just is advantageous. But
they disagree on to whom being just is advantageous. Is it to the just
man himself? Or is it to the ruler who determines what is and is not
just?
Thrasymachus puts forth an extreme form of the doctrine “might is
right.” For him being just is obeying the laws of rulers. Further,
he claims that rulers make laws for the purpose of increasing their
own power and wealth. Just men, therefore, are weak and powerless in
comparison to rulers. But Socrates soon has Thrasymachus agreeing that
sometimes rulers make errors of judgment and that, in such
The Term Paper on An Argument That Man Is Made In The Image Of God
I.Introduction In this paper, I seek to prove that Man is made in the image of God philosophically, given that God is the creator of the universe and that there are no other created beings in the universe other than those found on earth. I shall do this by proving that God displays and has certain noble and noteworthy features, and show how Man is unique in all creation in that we exemplify and ...
circumstances, the rulers’ advantage may be thwarted if their orders
are obeyed. Thrasymachus finds that he must qualify his claim:
Rulers who make mistakes are not rulers, in the precise sense of the
term.
2. At this point Thrasymachus unwittingly lets into the argument a
thoroughly Socratic notion: Rulers of any kind- of states, of arts, of
crafts- must be guided by knowledge. Rulers can be considered rulers
only when they are performing their proper function. But what is their
function? Is it not similar to the function of other useful arts?
Doctors serve the sick; ship captains serve sailors; horse trainers
serve horses. Knowing how to serve well, Socrates implies, is the
special knowledge of each profession. Rulers must know how to serve
the interests of the entire state. Thus, like other professionals,
rulers seek not their own advantage, but the advantage of those who
need their help.
3. Flustered by the turn the discussion has taken, Thrasymachus
insults Socrates (who, you can imagine, is smiling tolerantly, as
one might smile at an angry, chastised child).
Then he plunges into
a speech, thinking, no doubt, that by drawing on his powers of
persuasive rhetoric he can win the argument and the admiration of
the attentive young men. After all, Socrates’ preceding argument was
not an especially good one. But Thrasymachus’ rhetoric does not help
his cause. He makes a rather tactless comparison between shepherds who fatten sheep for their own appetites and rulers who fatten people
for the same reason. And he raises a controversial issue that will
guide much of the discussion of The Republic- the greatest happiness
belongs to the wrongdoers (tyrants, for example), not to those who are
wronged.
4. Instead of immediately attacking this last statement, Socrates
presents his belief that true rulers do not rule willingly. Again he
compares the function of rulers to the functions of other
professionals. He says that the aim of true rulers is to provide for
the welfare of the state and that true rulers are more or less
forced into leadership in order to avoid being ruled by people of less
ability than themselves. Why should rulers want to rule? Is it not
better to be provided for than to provide for others? Because
leadership is such a demanding, often thankless task, rulers, like
other craftsmen, deserve financial rewards for their services.
–
——————————————————————
NOTE: In this section you should note the comparisons that
Socrates introduces into the argument. He compares the usefulness of
rulers to the usefulness of doctors, merchants, ship captains, and
horse breeders. This technique is sometimes called “argument from
analogy.” Plato relies heavily on such arguments throughout The
Republic.
In part, Plato employs analogy to make the point that
statesmanship is like any other useful art or craft because it takes
special skill and knowledge. But also Plato uses argument from analogy
to persuade you to accept his views. Thus argument from analogy is a
technique of persuasive rhetoric. With all forms of persuasive
rhetoric (“propaganda” is the pejorative word), you should maintain
a critical outlook. Comparisons of unlike things may be misleading,
may be unfair and, more significantly, may cause you to accept as true
a statement that is false. And yet arguments from analogy often
—————————————————————–
–
INJUSTICE IS MORE PROFITABLE THAN JUSTICE (347e-354c)
–
Now Socrates turns to the question of whether justice is good or
bad. Logically speaking, Socrates has misplaced priorities: He is
trying to determine the value of justice before he has defined
justice. But he wants to maintain the interest of his audience.
Young men, he knows, often grow weary of prolonged analytical
discussions.
In the three stands of the following argument, Socrates attempts
to refute Thrasymachus’ claims that 1. being unjust is wise and good
(348c-350c); 2. injustice is power (350d-352c); and 3. the unjust
are happier than the just (352d-354c).
–
1. Socrates wins the first point through a chain of complicated,
if not incorrect, reasoning. Using argument from analogy, he
compares the art of living well with the musician’s art. The
musician has knowledge of music and in this way is better than the
unmusical person. The musician, however, does not want to be
superior to or “get the better” of others who share his knowledge;
rather, he wants only to be superior to the unmusical person. The same
is true of the just man; he wants to outdo the unjust man but not
those of his kind, the just. On the other hand, the unjust man wants
to be superior both to those like and unlike himself. The unjust man
is incredibly selfish and seeks only his own advantage. Socrates
says that people who are good and wise do not want to be superior to
or get the better of those who are like themselves. Thrasymachus
agrees. Thus he is trapped into conceding that the unjust person
cannot be good and wise. A strange argument, but a happy conclusion.
2. With little difficulty, and certainly with reasoning more
comprehensible than in the preceding argument, Socrates shows that
injustice cannot be power because there is no loyalty among the
unjust, no honor among thieves. Thrasymachus has to agree, based on
his earlier statements, that unjust people are immensely selfish and
so do not readily band together to achieve common goals. Continual
dissension and hostility create chaos, not the powerful achievement
gained by people working together harmoniously.
3. In the previous arguments Socrates demonstrated that justice is a
virtue, a human excellence. He now has to show that human action in
accordance with excellence brings happiness. Again Socrates uses
analogies: The excellence of eyes is to see, of ears to hear.
Excellence in these things, as in all others, means doing well in
performing one’s function. People who do well are blessed and happy.
Thrasymachus agrees with Socrates’ statements so far. Then Socrates
reminds him that he had earlier conceded that justice is an excellence
of character. Therefore, it must follow that the just person is the
happy person.
Socrates concludes by summing up all three strands of the
argument: Injustice is never more profitable than justice no matter
how, dear Thrasymachus, you argue. Yet, although Thrasymachus has been
soundly refuted, Socrates realizes that his argument is incomplete.
The crucial issue- what is the nature of justice- has not been
resolved. Justice is an excellence of human character and a source
of happiness. But knowing these things is just a beginning. What is
the just life? More investigation is needed. And so, on to Book II.
