Justice and Moderation of the Soul in The Republic, by Plato

Plato’s idea of civic justice displays a criteria for specialization that holds each individual responsible for producing their own rendition of excellence that leads to a just life, which produces a just city, and ultimately civic justice. Plato describes civic justice as “…doing one’s own work provided that it comes to be in a certain way” (433b-pg.108).

Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote “One man’s justice is another’s injustice.” This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient to Socrates also. Eventually, the two agree “that it is never just to harm anyone” (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a

The Republic by Plato examines many aspects of the human condition. In this piece of writing Plato reveals the sentiments of Socrates as they define how humans function and interact with one another. He even more closely Socrates looks at morality and the values individuals hold most important. One value looked at by Socrates and his colleagues is the principle of justice. Multiple definitions of justice are given and Socrates analyzes the merit of each. As the group defines justice they show how self-interest shapes the progression of their arguments and contributes to the definition of justice.

One of the central claims of Plato’s Republic is that justice is not only desirable for its own sake, but that it maximises the happiness of those who practice it. This paper examines Plato’s arguments in support of this thesis to determine (a) what he means by happiness, (b) to what extent it exists in his proposed ideal state, and (c) whether this in any way substantiates his claims about the benefits of justice. In particular, I will argue that there are two different conceptions of happiness at play in The Republic, and two methods of achieving its highest form, namely the pursuit of justice and philosophy, before arriving at a final definition of

Book II of The Republic by Plato showcases the two very different views of Socrates and Glaucon in regards to the account of nature and origin of justice. Socrates and Glaucon discuss the theory presented by Glaucon that states that injustice is something that is intrinsically desired by all humans. Glaucon presents this argument to Socrates in order to understand and defend justice for its own sake. Glaucon seeks reassurance from Socrates that justice is not just only good for the positive consequences that it produces, so he asks Socrates to explain that justice is desirable for its own sake and, additionally, the consequences that it provides. In the defense of justice, Socrates begins to explain that justice is a virtue that needs to be found in the individual as well as the state. Socrates believes that true happiness can only exist with a true set of virtues that are justice and respectable morals. Socrates’ assumption is on the fact that a man committing unjust actions will never be able to have complete satisfaction with his life if he has achieved everything through unjust actions because he cannot fully claim his accomplishments. Through examination of the assumptions of both arguments presented, Glaucon’s opinion on justice is superior to the views of Socrates. Glaucon’s presumptuous claim that humans are innately greedy is able to provide an understanding that justice is only a social contract for the weaker people of society by handicapping the strength of the

In The Republic Book IV, pp. 130e-136d, Socrates sets out to prove that societal justice is analogous to individual justice. In order to substantiate the analogy, Socrates compares the individual and the city. As he previously defined, justice in the city involves the power relationships between the different parts of the city, namely the guardians, the auxiliaries, and the producers.

Plato creates a seemingly invincible philosopher in The Republic. Socrates is able to refute all arguments presented before him with ease. The discussion on justice in Book I of The Republic is one such example. Socrates successfully refutes each different view of justice presented by Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus. Socrates has not given us a definitive definition of justice, nor has he refuted all views of justice, but as far as we are concerned in Book I, he is able to break down the arguments of his companions.

In Plato’s The Republic and The Apology, the topic of justice is examined from multiple angles in an attempt to discover what justice is, as well as why living a just life is desirable. Plato, writing through Socrates, identifies in The Republic what he thought justice was through the creation of an ideal city and an ideal soul. Both the ideal city and the ideal soul have three components which, when all are acting harmoniously, create what Socrates considers to be justice. Before he outlines this city and soul, he listens to the arguments of three men who hold popular ideas of the period. These men act to legitimize Socrates’ arguments because he finds logical errors in all of their opinions. In The Apology, a different, more down-to-Earth, Socrates is presented who, through his self-defense in court, reveals a different, even contradictory, view of the justice presented in The Republic. In this paper, the full argument of justice from The Republic will be examined, as well as the possible inconsistencies between The Republic and The Apology.

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

He argues that, “(...)when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenant’ and that which is ordained by law is termed by the, lawful and unjust (Plato, 3).” In this way man is sure of what unjust and just means. So that translates to when man has not experienced both, the relationship of lawful and unjust is skewed for them. For example, if someone in today’s society had this ability, what’s stopping them from enacting a terrible act on someone else when the punishment does not fit? A person with the ring shouldn’t murder someone, just because a person cut them off in traffic.

In the Greek society, there was enough wine and spirits for Socrates and his buddies to philosophize on the world around them, beginning the conversation of what is just and not. Ideas transform throughout the conversations of Socrates, Adeimantus, and Glaucon in the Republic forming what justice is in the opinion of Socrates. This opinion, the city in speech, is challenged by Adeimantus and Glaucon but Socrates eloquently responds to their challenges. Socrates’ answers with his city of speech are effective against the challenges of Adeimantus and Glaucon because every human has a soul with decency that is almost impossible to deny.

Although the speech in this section from the Republic appeared to be virtuous — it did, after all, force Glaucon to see that the spirited soul is different from the desiring soul — it is in fact blind speech. Socrates and Glaucon are speaking about the soul, but they are seeing only representations of the soul. To see this, let us travel through the scene once more. After Glaucon suggests that the spirited soul is the same as the desiring soul, Socrates tells the story of Leontius.

In the Republic, Plato through the mouth of Socrates attempts to engage in a discussion with Plato’s two brother, Glaucon and Adeimantus, who challenge him to address the value of justice and, why it would always be more profitable to act justly rather than not. But before we have even made our way through half of the Republic, Glaucon seems to believe that they have successfully answered this question by the end of Book IV. He takes it that after Socrates has explained what it is for the soul to be just, the profit of being and acting just follows. Throughout this essay however, I will argue that Glaucon’s conclusion that their question of the value of justice has been answered—if we can take it as a conclusion—is unsatisfactory in the very least. The insufficiency in the argument stems from the ambiguity in the relationship between just actions and their necessity for the maintaining of a just soul (which I will later discuss in greater detail). Despite Socrates’ claim then, that just actions are required to sustain a just soul, I contend that, at this point in the Republic, their discussion of justice and its value has left it nonetheless possible for an unjust action to be more profitable to a person, without that action being necessarily detrimental to the justice of their soul.

The Republic by Plato was a fascinating piece of literature to read. This book focuses on issues that are still very relevant to this day. That just really shows two things, how smart Plato was and also how humans haven’t changed. Over the years’ humans may have developed and advanced so much, but who we are and how we behave, think and feel hasn’t changed a bit. Prior to reading this, I believed that as time has gone on we have developed as a people, but Plato shows that the problems and issues of Ancient Greece are similar, if not the same as our modern day ones. Plato has made me aware that we have only developed on the surface, our natural desires and instincts however are something that hasn’t changed. In fact, it bares to question if we will ever change.

Every individual is different in terms of capabilities, mental and physical opportunities but they tend to resite in a society as human beings. For the well being of the state and overall development it is necessary for the state to follow certain norms or conditions. In the ancient times the benefits of these norms or conditions were given to high class elite group and other groups had to suffer from violations. This gave rise to the concept of justice as the people felt the need of some sort of social organisation that would satisfy interest of every person of the society. Justice can be interpreted on basis of ethnicity, law, equity and rationality. Different theories of justice were proposed by Plato in Plato’s Republic , Utilitarian theorist