Plato on Justice and Injustice Essay Example For Students

Plato on Justice and Injustice Essay In The Republic, Plato attempts to demonstrate through the character and discourse of Socrates that justice is better than justice is the good which men must strive for, regardless of whether they could be unjust and still be rewarded. His method is to use dialectic, the asking and answering of questions which led the hearer from one point to another, supposedly with irrefutable logic by obtaining agreement to each point before going on to the next, and so building an argument. Early on, his two young listeners pose the question of whether justice is stronger than injustice, what each does to a man, and what makes the first ood and the second bad. In answering this question, Socrates deals directly with the philosophy of the individuals goodness and virtue, but also ties it to his concept of the perfect state, which is a republic of three classes of people with a rigid social structure and little in the way of amusement. Although Socrates returns time and again to the concept of justice in his discourse on the perfect city-state, much of it seems off the original subject. One of his main points, however, is that goodness is doing what is best for the common, greater good rather than for individual happiness. There is a real sense in which his philosophy turns on the concepts of virtue, and his belief that ultimately virtue is its own reward. His first major point is that justice is an excellence of character. He then seeks agreement that no excellence is achieved through destructive means. The function of justice is to improve human nature, which is inherently constructive. Therefore, at a minimum, justice is a form of goodness that cannot be involved in injuring someones character. Justice, in short, is a virtue, a human excellence. His next point is that acting in accordance with excellence brings appiness. Then he ties excellence to ones function. His examples are those of the senses each sensory organ is excellent if it performs its function, as the eye sees, the ear hears. Therefore, the just person is a happy person is a person who performs his function. Since these are tied together, injustice can never exceed these virtues and so justice is stronger and is the good. However, Socrates does not stop there. He goes on to examine the question of the nature of justice and the just life. He identifies the four of the Athenian virtues: wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. For the bulk of he book, he looks at each virtue separately in terms of the perfect city state, but our focus is on justice. But he makes the point that justice, of the virtues, resides in mans relations to other men, not just in man as an individual. Thus, it is an excellence in social organization and in the organization of the human soul. So justice is a virtue which must be connected to the function of efficient and healthful cooperation. Justice is in one sense the greatest virtue for it is key to making the other virtues work together for the common good. If all the parts are to work together as a whole, each must have on function to excel at. Like the organs of the body, all contribute to the whole, but the eyes only see, the ears only hear. They do not share functions. Using this analogy, justice would be something like the moral mind which guides the body in its activities. Justice, then is the head, at the top of the hierarchy in social terms. When the other three virtues work together in orderly fashion within the state, justice is produced. But for justice to be produced, it must come from everyone doing his assigned function under the excellent guidance of the ruling class. Despite his emphasis of justice as a function of the perfect state, Socrates also deals with justice as a personal virtue. He finds that there is a parallel between the organization of the state and the organization of the individual. Just as there are three virtues other than justice, Socrates finds three parts in the individual soul sensation, emotion, intelligence. The just person, then must have balance between these aspects. Each must function in moderation to contribute to the health of the whole. Appetite and sensation are matters of desire. Desire must be subordinate to reason, or else they will throw the individual out of balance and lead him into injustice and unhappiness. Emotion (spirit and will) also can master desire. The alliance of emotion and reason is similar, Socrates says, to the rulers and the guardians in the state. Thus, the individual is a miniature state, and justice in the soul is like justice in the state. Plato was a philosopher in the time of the distinguished Greek philosophers. He wrote a book entitled The Republic in which he explains some of his philosophy on subjects ranging from education to government. The Republic discusses the nature of justice and the institutions of society. In some ways it is idealistic in that it describes Platos ideal ociety. But it also deals with human knowledge, the purpose and composition of education, and the nature of science. The principle of justice is the main theme of The Republic. Plato makes a connection between the principle of justice and his Theory of Forms in The Republic. When talking about the Ideal State, Plato is saying that one should never act without knowledge. So, if one wished to build a just city, they should only do so after they have understood the meaning of justice. But they cannot achieve an understanding of true justice until they have grasped the Form of Justice itself. Plato refers to his Theory of Forms throughout the dialogue, as it plays a major role in understanding his views of an Ideal State. Socrates is the main character and Plato uses Socrates as to voice his own opinions about his Ideal State. Through a series of questions, Socrates attempts to help his companions discover their own ignorance, since the starting point of philosophy is the realization that you do not have knowledge. Socrates is always at the center of the discussion and is often contemptuous and ironical, but he never strays from the importance of the subject being discussed. Socrates first states that justice is a good character. He then seeks agreement that no excellence is achieved through destructive means. The function of justice is to improve human nature, which is inherently constructive. Therefore, at a minimum, justice is a form of goodness that cannot be involved in injuring someones character. Justice, in short, is a virtue, a human excellence. His next point is that acting in accordance with excellence brings happiness. Then he ties excellence to ones function. His examples are those of the senses each sensory organ is excellent if it performs its function, as the eye sees, he ear hears. Therefore, the just person is a happy person is a person who performs his function. Since these are tied together, injustice can never exceed these virtues and so justice is stronger and is the good. However, Socrates does not stop there. He goes on to examine the question of the nature of justice and the just life. He identifies the four of the Athenian virtues: wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. For the bulk of the book, he looks at each virtue separately in terms of the perfect city state, but our focus is on justice. But he makes the point that justice, of he virtues, resides in mans relations to other men, not just in man as an individual. Thus, it is an excellence in social organization and in the organization of the human soul. So justice is a virtue, which must be connected to the function of efficient and healthful cooperation. Justice is in one sense the greatest virtue for it is key to making the other virtues work together for the common good. If all the parts are to work together as a whole, each must have on function to excel at. Like the organs of the body, all contribute to the whole, but the eyes only see, the ears only hear. They do not share functions. Using this analogy, justice would be something like the moral mind which guides the body in its activities. Justice, then is the head, at the top of the hierarchy in social terms. When the other three virtues work together in orderly fashion within the state, justice is produced. But for justice to be produced, it must come from everyone doing his assigned function under the excellent guidance of the ruling class. Plato attempts to demonstrate through the character and discourse of Socrates that justice is better than injustice and that justice is the good which men must strive for, regardless of hether they could be unjust and still be rewarded. His method is to use dialectic, the asking and answering of questions which led the hearer from one point to another, supposedly with irrefutable logic by obtaining agreement to each point before going on to the next, and so building an argument. Early on, his two young listeners pose the question of whether justice is stronger than injustice, what each does to a man, and what makes the first good and the second bad. In answering this question, Socrates deals directly with the philosophy of the individuals goodness and virtue, ut also ties it to his concept of the perfect state, which is a republic of three classes of people with a rigid social structure and little in the way of amusement. Although Socrates returns time and again to the concept of justice in his discourse on the perfect city-state, much of it seems off the original subject. One of his main points, however, is that goodness is doing what is best for the common, greater good rather than for individual happiness. There is a real sense in which his philosophy turns on the concepts of virtue, and his belief that ultimately virtue is its own reward. Despite his emphasis of justice as a function of the perfect state, Socrates also deals with justice as a personal virtue. He finds that there is a parallel between the organization of the state and the organization of the individual. About the Law EssayAccording to Plato, things you can see, feel, or touch for example, a chair, are not a genuine article, but merely a shadow of the real thing. He believed that these forms existed n parallel somewhere, and had was the essence of the real thing. For example, the form of a chair exists somewhere, and embodies everything that all chairs have in common. It doesnt mean that we can describe it, because not all chairs have four legs, or any legs for that matter. Not all chairs are meant to be sat in, or have arms. What does every chair have in common? No one can fully answer that question. When stated like this it can easily be understood, but when someone asks what all chairs have in common, or what all windows have in common, the idea of this form becomes cloudy because these questions can not be answered. The same can said about a truly just decision, or an action . He believed the same about ideas, such as truth and justice. For example when I perform a just act, it is just because it conforms to the ideal form of justice. The idea of forms is carried on to earth by the fact that all things such as ideas, and objects have a tangible existence. We act out these ideas, and make chairs, therefore they are tangible. The second idea in the Allegory of the Cave is the common man. According to Plato, they represent all people before they are fully educated. The common man sees nothing but the shadows on the wall of the cave. These shadows represent everything that we have ever seen, and since they are the only things we have ever seen, they constitute all that is real to us. Being fully educated involves the ability to see everything, including all that is outside the cave. The third part, the fire, is merely there to shed light on the forms, casting a shadow into the cave. Thus creating the only reality that the common man sees. The fourth part is the ascending man. This is the one man who manages to emerge from the cave that shelters the common man. Once he comes out, he finally understands the forms, and becomes fully educated. He sees that the shadows only hinted at the truth of reality. The fire can give you a vague idea of what the reality of things are, but until you surface, then you only see the shadow of reality. The final part is the descending man. Hes the person who came out of the cave and became enlightened. Hes on his way back to tell the others what hes learned, and try to get them to understand that there really is more to life than the shadows that everyone sees. The story that basically tells us of Socrates trial by his peers because of what he saw that they could not. The man in the cave tried to return to the cave after eing released, so that they might experience some of the beauty that he was allowed to view. He was murdered for his attempts to persuade. Truly in our times we have many freedoms including that of free speech. But our taking advantage of those freedoms, not using them for positive thought, puts us in that cave. The only way to release ourselves from the malaise or bonds of everyday lives, is to attempt to see every situation or thought as valuable in some way. We owe it to philosophers to at least give their beliefs an honest evaluation without condemning them. We all know what exists outside the cave. The people in the cave however, truly believe that the man allowed to leave was psychotic when he told them of what he had seen. ll the customary rules of religion and moral conduct imposed on the individual by social sanctions have their origin in human intelligence and will and always rest on tacit consent. They are neither laws of nature nor divine enactments, but conventions which man who made them can alter, as laws are changed or repealed by legislative bodies. It is assumed that, if all these artificial restraint s were removed, the natural man would be left only with purely egotistic instincts and desires, which he would ndulge in all that Thrasymachus commended as injustice. Plato continues his discussion of Forms later on. Socrates is trying to convince his companions why a philosopher would make the best king. On reason is that being a philosopher, the king will have knowledge of the Forms, and therefore have true knowledge. It is very important to Plato for a ruler to have knowledge of Justice and Goodness, so that he may administer justice and act for the good of his people. The Form of Goodness is the highest and most important of all the Forms, it is not on a level with the other forms, or the other Forms derive their truth and reality from Goodness. Socrates goes on to use an analogy of the sun to explain the highest for of knowledge, Goodness. Light is what makes things visible and the best source of light is the sun. The sun is not the same as visible things, but it is what makes vision itself possible. Similarly, the good is not the same as the objects of knowledge, but it is the source of knowledge. To see requires sun, to know requires reason. The analogy can be stated as, the idea of good is to reasoning as the sun is to seeing. Also in this book, Pluto expands on his distinction between knowledge and belief. He divides them into four kinds of objects. There are two degrees of knowledge and two degrees of belief. The highest degree of knowledge is Goodness, followed by the other Forms. The first degree of belief are physical objects, as the second degree of belief are shadows and images of the physical objects. In the last book, Plato criticizes poetry and the fine arts. Plato feels that art is merely the imitation of the imitation of reality, and that poetry corrupts the soul. Socrates says that artists merely create things. As an example, if a painter draws a couch on his canvas, he is creating a couch. But the couch he creates is not the real couch, it is nothing but a copy of an ordinary, physical couch which was created by a craftsman. But the ordinary, physical couch is nothing more than an imperfect copy, or image of the Form of Couch. So, the couch on the canvas is nothing but a copy of a copy of the real couch and is therefore three times removed from reality. Socrates then goes on to explain that an artists knowledge is also third- rate. If an artist is painting a picture of a table, for example, he is copying a table that has been manufactured by a furniture-maker, and this urniture-maker has more knowledge of the table than the painter does. But there is someone who has ever more knowledge about the table, the person who wants to have the table made. He is the one who gives the furniture- maker instructions to follow when making the table, according to its purpose for the buyer. So, the buyer of the table knows more about the table than the furniture-maker, and the furniture-maker knows more about the table than the painter. Socrates believes that only philosophers have the first-hand knowledge of things, since they believe in The Forms. Socrates also denounces Homer. Socrates feels that in his writing, Homer has pretended to be people he is not, such as a politician, general, businessman, teacher, and philosopher. Socrates feels this is wrong because Homer is claiming to be able to perform these functions that he has written about, but never really performed himself. He feels that Homer is abandoning reality. Plato feels that poetry has no place in his Ideal State, and should be banished until it can show itself to be a friend of philosophy. Socrates also mentions about the existence of an immortal soul. With this concession, he makes the point that good is that which preserves nd benefits. Justice is good, so it therefore preserves and benefits in this life as well as the next. Therefore, even though a man may wish to behave badly when no one is looking, as with the myth of the ring of Gyges, in fact, behaving justly will have the most rewards. The Republic was Platos ways of expressing his Theory of Forms and Justice. The main idea perhaps is to make people understand that there can be no justice within a society whose people are not just within themselves. There needs to be an internal justice, within the people, and within each person, in order to bring peace to the society. From reading the Republic, I realized that some issues he mentions are very clear, and some are not clear since I live in a different society and time. Plato does not describe his ideal society in great detail since he is considered with the ideal idea itself, and it is hard for me as a materialist to understand without seeing. One thing that is clear is that Plato tries to defend his theory all along and lets us, the unknowledged, experience a glimpse of the good. Platos belief seemed that life was to involve a movement upward toward the good, as this was a movement of the Soul.