Does Plato Believe There Can Ever Be A Just Society

A just and fair world filled with just and fair people does not exist- it is a utopia. This

away from the elite social groups, and now be for everybody. Also just because a

As we progress further down the road to prosperity there is always a time before or after that knocks us down and shows either the best or the worst of society. With that said society to an

What is the purpose of the city-soul analogy and does it help us understand the nature of justice?

It is in the public’s interest to maintain a predictable standard of acceptable behavior. Without such a standard, society will fall into chaos.

Wolff (1970) defines a state as a group of persons who have the right to exercise supreme authority within a territory, over a population. He proposes In the Defense of Anarchism, men are autonomous, as higher degrees of autonomy is achieved, a man will resist the claim that states have authority over him. This illustrates the puzzle of Political obligation and can be explained through the appeal to consent.

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.

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

A just society as one in which all citizens willingly subordinated their private, selfish interests to the common good

The ideal society as suggested by Plato is composed of three classes: the producers, the auxiliaries, and the guardians.

     Sir Thomas More writes, in his book Utopia, about a society that is perfect in practically ever sense. The people all work an equal amount and everything they need for survival is provided. Most importantly is that everyone living in this perfect society is happy and content with their everyday lives. In this society everybody supports everyone. The community is only as strong as its weakest link. For society to progress everyone must work together. Opponents of the Utopian system, however, feel that the strong should not have to look after the weak. Progress would be maximized if all the resources are spent on the people most qualified to help society. A Utopian society, as perfect as the one

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.

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.

The idea then of a just society I contend, comes down to people living under a fair and common law, order, political system, social organization, as well as everyone having personal and political freedom.

The world is a complicated place and today's standards of society make it even more difficult to live and act in one's own way. I sometimes wonder what life would be like if we could start all over and build a brand new society - a society that guarantees social justice for all groups and full rights to every individual. Would there be a way to make everything and everyone equal? From the beginning society has been judgmental in one way or another, rather it is through racism, sexism, or classicism. There has always been a group of people who declared themselves righteous above all others and if one was not a part of this group he or she was discriminated against simply for not being the same as the dominating group.