• Introduce the texts being discussed and their author’s.
• Then identify the main themes/ideas being compared. E.g. Justice (and the idea) and the noble lie(and idea)
• State the key features each author uses to convey to the reader (in similar/different ways)
• How as a result of these features, the perspective of the reader is formed.
Throughout Plato’s The Republic a Socratic dialogue and Tsugmi Ohba and Takeshi Obata Death Note a psychological/thriller, the issues of what constitutes as justice and the implications of noble lie are heavily debated between the characters and within their ideologies in each text respectively. Both texts use justice to convey unanswerable but necessary questions on what constitutes as justice, how the
…show more content…
This story raises multiple queries about the idea and constitution of justice and its connection the character of Glaucon uses this fable to argue that justice is a kind of socially constructed contract which keeps people from harming one another. Glaucon’s thought experiment is supposed to demonstrate the fact that people really only value justice because doing so benefits their perception in the public’s image. In other words, it would be more beneficial for someone in Gyges’s position to act as they like because people only value justice or morality when their actions can be scrutinised, Light from the death note acknowledges this face and states “Humans will all ways try to maintain appearances when there in public that’s just how we are…” however, when they are given anonymity and the risk of damaging ones reputation is gone so is all their sense of justice “…But this is how they really feel most are too afraid to support me as they a worried about what others will think; Many would rather deny my existence, but on the internet where you can remain anonymous support for KIRA is growing”. Glaucon states it doesn’t matter whether or not you are just or unjust before putting on the ring the power of temptation will inevitably lead you to corruption. When
Glaucon sees the issue from the perspective of personal gain or loss, while Plato sees it from outside that realm in the sphere of absolute truths. Clearly, an absolute truth is more viable and defensible than a personal interest. Justice is a higher order than personal advantage and as is associated with happiness whether one receives a reward for justice or not. The argument Glaucon raises against the absolutism of justice is exemplified in his story of the man who discovers a gold ring that allows him to become invisible. Glaucon proposes these two representative men as extreme examples of the two sides of the argument and suggests that their positions be examined after their death to see which was happier, based on the premise that the unjust man meted out injustice at will without ever suffering it himself, while the just man acted only justly but was treated unjustly himself. Glaucon takes this example to the extreme, with the just man being: “whipped...racked...bound; he'll have both his eyes burned out; and at the end, when he has undergone every sort of evil, he'll be crucified and know that one shouldn't wish to be, but to seem to be, just” (39). Glaucon sets these two men at extremes to prove his point-that happiness does not come from being
The Crito and the Republic were both works of Plato. Plato’s works were divided into early, middle and late dialogues. The Crito falls into the category of the formal while the Republic falls into the category of the latter. In his early dialogues, Plato was influenced by Socratic philosophy but as he ages, he starts to develop his distinct and independent philosophy. Justice is the fundamental concept that will be discussed in this paper. The scope of discussion will mainly revolve around the Crito, the Apology and the Republic. In Socrates’ submission and acceptance of his sentence lies the implication that Socrates agrees with democracy as a political system. Plato, on the other hand,
Glaucon begins by arguing that people only act justly because they believe that the action will reap reward. He essentially argues that justice is a necessary evil and without it society would tear itself apart. He argues that justice is a social contract formed because the ‘disadvantages of suffering injury exceed the advantages of inflicting it’(Plato, 2008). Essentially he
Plato’s Republic, is a classic philosophical novel that covers many points and topics regarding philosophy. One of these main points includes justice. In this essay I will be answering the question of whether justice in soul is choice worthy for its own sake. While this topic is quite complex, I will use a mixture of personal analysis as well as evidence from the book itself to assert that justice in soul is the best choice for its own sake. In the following paragraphs I will discuss what justice in the soul is, why justice in soul is choice worthy and finally to what extent this choice entails.
In the fall of 2017, I wrote a paper for my political theory class about the way the “just man”, described by Socrates in Plato’s Republic, would act. This paper was the source of our midterm grade and I chose the topic from a list of limited options. To gain a deeper understanding of this paper, one may delve into its rhetorical context. So, to completely gain a grasp of its rhetorical context, one must identify the significance of the author, audience, topic, and the author’s purpose.
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.
The Myth of Gyges Ring is a story about a man who came upon a ring that gives him the ability of being invisible. With the possession of this ring, the man was enabled to commit several unjust acts without being discovered. It was a story told by Glaucon and it serves as an important factor in the dialogue. This factor is one that leads others in the conversation to stop and truly think if they would take advantage of the ring to undergo unjust behaviors. Then, if those individuals found themselves saying yes, it would imply that the reason why they don’t commit injustice normally is not necessarily because they are good people, but because they do not want to be punished or jeopardize their reputation in any way. This brings us to the next
He tells the story about a shepherd who finds a gold ring of invisibility and uses it to take over the kingdom, by killing the king and seducing his wife. With this, Glaucon restates his statement that people believe in justice only because they are scared to do wrong, because of the punishment that will follow if they are caught.
He says that justice is the kind of good we choose for its own sake and the for the sake of its consequences. Glaucon challenges this by sharing the mythical tale of Gyges. The story is about a servant of the ruler of Lydia who discovers a golden ring. The ring gives him the power of invisibility which he uses to seduce the king’s wife, and later kill the king to take over the kingdom. After telling the story, Glaucon explains that if the same ring were given to a just and unjust person that they would act in the same. This is because everyone has the same desire to do better. A similar example can be found in the Harry Potter films. Harry is given the same power of invisibility when he is given his father’s invisibility cloak. He uses the cloak to roam the corridors after hours and sneak into the restricted section of Hogwarts’ library. Without the cloak, Harry probably wouldn’t have done this because he was not given permission to. Both of these examples prove that all who practice justice do so unwillingly. It makes sense that anyone would break the rules to get what they want if they did not have to suffer its
This essay considers the extent to which the U.S. should be tolerant of what can be considered damaging forms of justice and freedom. For example, if I do whatever I want knowing there’s consequences and laws in this country, then maybe I should second guess myself and choose the smartest option at that moment. But for those who aren’t smart and don’t care about the law often times end up those who ruin this country, so exactly how much justice and freedom should they receive? Plato believed that the conflicting interest of others could be harmonized in an ideal society, without the expense of one or another’s group. I wonder if there was no such thing as justice, would the individual be more cautious of his/her actions.
Plato’s Republic, although officially divided into ten books, can be separated into two very distinct sections. The first section, roughly spanning Books I through IV, contains a rather tangible investigation of justice in practice. Namely, the section considers what acts or occurrences are just, either in a city or in a man. The second section, beginning around Book V and continuing through the end of the dialogue, deals with the much more abstract issue of justice in a soul. The backbone of this section is the Allegory of the Cave, and the establishment of the philosopher. Within these discussions, a new concept of justice is revealed which proves to be the most profound in the dialogue, and
Plato’s interpretation of justice as seen in ‘The Republic’ is a vastly different one when compared to what we and even the philosophers of his own time are accustomed to. Plato would say justice is the act of carrying out one’s duties as he is fitted with. Moreover, if one’s duties require one to lie or commit something else that is not traditionally viewed along with justice; that too is considered just by Plato’s accounts in ‘The Republic.’ I believe Plato’s account of justice, and his likely defense against objections are both clear and logical, thus I will endeavor to argue his views as best as I can.
For example, honor manifests itself similarly in each work, but is acted on to a different extent. In both
Knowledge and understanding of the very most basic human values is of basic importance to any human in the world, to make truly responsible decisions, and to give a responsible direction to one's life; and also to give a truly responsible direction to the development of one's children. Anybody in politics who is not aware of the most basic human values is unable to make responsible decisions, justice and to give direction to economic, social, or environmental development of his or her country. This Assignment will focus on the concept of justice as a moral value belonging to category of “goodness” by using one of the books of Plato that resides heavily on defining an answer to the meaning of Justice and also distinguish between
Plato’s idea of the city has three classes based on labour division i.e. the guardian class, auxiliary class and the merchant class, with wisdom, courage and moderation as their prime essential attributes. Similarly, the psyche of individual has three categories, i.e., reasoning (to rule), spirit (to enable the rule by reason) and appertite. Justice for polis implies following the class structure based on essence of true nature of the class, whereas, justice for individuals is about following one’s own psyche to pursue one’s task. Can Plato’s notion of justice in his republic be seen as a bridge between soul and the polis, as oftenly stated – statecraft as soulcraft.