Plato's Ring Of Justice Essay

Justice is not an intrinsic good for ones own sake but it is often preformed for both one’s own personal sake along with the sake of the consequences. In the story, with both the just man and the unjust man, when they were invisible, there were no consequences for their actions. So Glaucon believes that they would both behave in an unjust way because there are no repercussions for their actions. People often in act a just way for the consequences of injustice happening to them. Socrates responds with saying that one could get more out of this world if we acted unjustly but had the reputation of upholding justice. He also introduces the principle of molding. We have these outer shells of what we are “perceived to be”. So he puts into question if we are suppose to suppress our inner self to conform to the outside, like a lion with a human mold, or are we suppose to let it be

In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.

In this essay, I will argue that Plato 's definition of justice in the individual is inadequate since a just individual cannot act unjustly. I will start by defining justice in the individual. Next, I will reexamine Socrates’ refutation of Polemarchus’ second definition. Then, I will show how just individuals (i.e., the philosophy rulers) in the republic act unjustly by using the example of the treatment of people with disability in the republic. This creates a contradiction in Socrates ' definition. Lastly, I will propose two remedies to solve this contradiction.

For years, philosophers have tried to define justice. In Plato’s The Republic, Plato discusses the equality of the sexes, abolition of family, rule by philosophers, life and while doing so, attempts to describe what justice is. In Book I, the search for the answer to what is just is set up through discussion done mostly by Socrates, Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus contributes to this conversation by establishing what he thinks justice means, especially in regards to government and law. Thrasymachus argues that justice is “the advantage of the stronger” (Plato 338c). Through discussion with Socrates, who opposes this view, Thrasymachus offers his definition and explanation of the argument. I believe that though Thrasymachus’s

In the Republic of Plato, three separate individuals present the definition of justice in three distinct ways. Thrasymachus, states that justice is the advantage or what is beneficial of the stronger. Although Thrasymachus’s claim is true to an extent, the logic falls short when the question of fallibility of government comes into play as well as the art’s role in society.

In the book, Plato Republic, Socrates had a discussion with Thrasymachus and Glaucon about justice and unjustice. In this essay, I shall argue that Plato’s solution of the temptation of the ring is successful in a few ways. I will describe Thrasymachus and Glaucon’s idea about justice, and how Socrates discuss with them in terms of the justice of the city, justice of individual soul, his theory of forms and the importance of the knowledge of the good, and the sun analogy and the allegory of the cave.

In Plato’s Republic, several competing explanations of justice are offered. First, we hear Thrasymachus’s account of justice in Book I, as being the advantage of the stronger. We then receive Glaucon’s explanation of justice in Book II: the agreement between men to act just in order to avoid the pain of being on the receiving end of an unjust act. Finally, Socrates provides us with the best definition of justice, saying that justice is the result of three specific classes performing their function within a city in order for the collaboration to conclude in self-sufficiency. Socrates’s definition of justice outshines those of Thrasymachus and Glaucon because he takes into account that not every person is the same, but everyone is equal. Socrates’s refutations of both Thrasymachus and Glaucon help completely shape his argument of what justice is when it comes to Book 4. Socrates made his definition of justice general enough to where it accounted for everyone in the city. As long as everyone performed the duty they were naturally capable of, they were just.

In contrast to Thrasymachus, Socrates argues that it is the virtue of the soul that provides the motivation for committing a just act, which should be the primary casual reason for justice in human society. Socrates’ argument that the psychic health of the soul is defined as being part of the virtue of wisdom, which prevents the unjust man from committing an unjust act. This description of the soul is part of the countermand to Thrasymachus’ remarks about the advantage of the social framework of the “strong” and the ”weak, which Socrates replies by arguing for the wisdom of virtue as a the balancing motivation for justice: “But it is evident that there must have been some remnant of justice in them [the unjust individual]” Plato 22). This argument, however, only shows the causality of the soul as a virtue, as it does not provide a bridge to the actions of human beings in the real world. In this manner, Glaucon provides a more effective argument against the fallacies of Socrates, which define the societal motivations of punishment and reward that are part of the larger problem of self-serving legal benefits that only benefit the stronger.

Plato wrote, “And are there not many other cases in which we observe that when a man’s desires violently prevail over his reason, he reviles himself, and is angry at the violence within him, and that in this struggle, which is like the struggle of fractions in a State, his sprit is on the side of his reason.” According to Plato and many other Greek Gods, humans are always best served when they chose to act reasonably and when acting on impulse. For others they believed what the Athenians told the Melians: “[In] the discussion of human affairs the question of justice only enters when the pressure of necessity is equal, and that the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must.” There was no remorse by the powerful by acting

In Plato’s The Republic, Socrates expresses his belief that in order for a state and its people to be functioning at their best, every citizen ought to do what they have the most character for, or what they are most qualified to do. Whether it is craftsmanship, guarding the city, playing music, or healing the sick, Socrates thinks that everyone should make his or her living doing one thing that they are skilled at, and one thing only. In order to ensure that only the best guardians are guarding the state, and only the most fit to rule become rulers, and so on, Socrates proposes the myth of the metals. He says to Glaucon that such an “audacious fiction” is necessary to convince the people that their livelihoods are beyond their choice and out of their control. The myth of the metals contains various invented truths, the first being that the state does not educate or train any citizen in their youth; instead, it is the earth that cultivates each person’s characteristics and skills. In this way, everyone has different inherent talents that are specially selected by God. God mingles gold into those who have the power to command others and who have claim to the greatest honor in society. He makes others with silver, which He deems best fit to guard the city as auxillaries, or soldiers. And finally, He composes the craftsmen, farmers, and other common citizens with brass and iron. God commands the rulers of the state to

Plato gives us two similarities to understand what justice means, the soul and the state. Socrates tells his listeners that the soul is divided into three parts, the rational, and spirited and appetitive. The appetitive part is where all our desires and wants are. (Book 4,439d). This part does not have any remorse for anything and that is where the rational part comes in.

You can sit down and turn on any news channel and feast your eyes on the many injustices of the world; terrorist attacks, armed robberies, and school shootings, just to name a few. Based on these examples it seems obvious that the many injustices in the world seem inherently wrong. The very definition states that unjust actions are not in accordance to what is morally right and fair. It seems odd to even question why justice is better than injustice. However, this is the question that is contemplated in Plato’s Book II of The Republic. In this essay, I plan to discuss the argument for a just life being better and the argument for an unjust life being better as discussed in the book. I will then finish by discussing where Glaucon’s argument falls short, as well as my own argument that answering the question of just vs. unjust is based upon an individual’s moral viewpoint of what is right.

However when they are actually put in the situation, because of their human nature they would take advantage of such abnormalities, regardless of it being just or not. In the selection “Plato’s Republic” justice versus injustice is illustrated in “Gyges ring.” Gyges steals a ring that gives him the power to disappear and reappear again.

Despite the seemingly persuasive purpose of the Myth of Er, its inclusion in Republic does present challenges to Plato’s argument. The very fact that Plato included the Myth of Er in his Republic undermines his claim that justice is beneficial in its own right. Instead, he feels the necessity to tell the Myth of Er as a motivator to live a just life. In Book 2, Plato, via Adeimantus, critiques those who defend justice by only speaking of its reputation. He ridicules these men, such as Homer and Hesiod, because “not one has ever blamed injustice or praised justice except by mentioning the reputations, honors, and rewards that are the consequences” (366e). Plato considers these authors’ systems of logic to be inferior and less substantive than his own. They glorify the consequences of a just reputation “by throwing in being well

This ring would be used by many politicians to hide their characters and practice injustices without any person realizing. Through the story by Plato, Republic takes into consideration whether an intellectual individual would be moral if he or she did not fear being pointed and meeting the hands of the law for carrying out any injustice in the community or when pursuing his or her political duties. In the story, Glaucon argues that no one practices justice voluntarily as many people consider their personal desires when in power. This paper answers a number of questions on the use the ring of Gyges when I would be in possession of one. In answering the questions, the paper analyses the story as written by Plato in his books, the Republic.