Plato’s Conception of Justice Essay

The Republic is a dialogue between Socrates, Plato’s brothers, the Sophist Thrasymachus, along with Cephalus and his son, Polymarchus. The first book of the republic involves a presentation and refutation of the different views on justice. Socrates used the method of elenchus in order to show the flaws of the argument. Cephalus The topic concerning justice has started when Cephalus commented on living a just life. For preliminary, Cephalus have offered a definition of justice as that of telling the truth and paying someone what you owe. However, this idea was debunk by Socrates by offering a counter-argument which ask if this still hold in the case of a madman or someone who is insane. To further clarify, this issue that Socrates presents was whether or not a person shall return a knife that was borrowed from another person. With respect to Cephalus’s interpretation of justice, the knife shall be given back to its owner. However, Socrates presented a case, wherein the owner of the knife has gone insane and was planning to kill someone else. The madman was asking for his knife to be returned. Socrates, ask if giving back the knife shall still imply justice. Cephalus, himself, agreed with Socrates that this shall not imply what justice is. However, Cephalus have not managed to give further argument since he has to attend on certain things regarding the presentation of sacrifice. In the beginning of the conversion between Cephalus and Socrates, Cephalus could be characterized as someone who is very willing to converse with Socrates. Yet, when his idea was out rightly rejected to be false or to contain flaws he escape from the conversation using an alibi that something else came up and must be done, leaving the argument on the hands of his son, Polemarchus. Cephalus’s definition of justice and the way he reacts seems a bit related to how capitalist thinks. The mention of returning someone else’s favor or paying debts is a proof of this. For business people it would be just to return the debt you owe. Not doing so would be regarded as cheating or not being fair. Also, telling the truth is a must in the business world, if one would lie about certain transactions or about the real cost of something, it would is tantamount to deceiving the other person. The other person would not trust the liar anymore and the liar’s business would sooner or later fall down. Telling the truth is indeed just, since lying is always viewed as an injustice. However, as the case presented by Socrates shows, there are times, wherein man ought to tell lies and not to return debts or something one has borrow. With respect on how Socrates clarifies his point, it is obvious that giving back what you have borrowed and telling the truth does not guarantee a just action as what Cephalus pointed out, it might even lead to more injustice, if one would not look more closely. Polemarchus Polemarchus continued the dialogue by offering a related definition. He views justice as helping or giving favors to those who give you favor and harming those which does you harm. However, Socrates have been able to point out that, human judgment for whom to consider as a friend or as and enemy is open to error, such that the friend might just be pretending to be a friend and what you think as an enemy might be someone who is a friend. Also, some of your friends might turn as an enemy later in life and vice versa. The same thing goes with some of your friend might not be a good person and some of your enemy might be a good person. Socrates argued that it shall not be the case that you would only give favors to those who you consider as a friend for the time being and give harm to those you consider as an enemy. Polemarchus view was generally an immature view of what is justice. The definition was somewhat childish since it is the same principle as hating your enemies and keeping your friends. It also seems to be the most obvious view about justice in their generation, since it has political underpinnings. As war continued to shape their civilization, it was rational for those people living in that time to view justice in reference to enemies and friends. This shows that those who help you are your friends thus; they must be treated with respect and kindness. On the other hand, those who go against you or your country are considered as your enemy. Since â€Å"enemies† goal is to destroy or conquer each other, it would be rational not to help them and do them harm as what Polemarchus is trying to imply.   Relatively, Polemarchus holds the same view as Cephalus with respect to â€Å"giving someone what is owed to them†.   While Cephalus tried to incorporate money matters on his definition, Polemarchus treat his definition as a general version of what Cephalus has been trying to imply. Nevertheless, Socrates, remains unconvinced of their definition of justice, for both could be derived from flawed premises. Cephalus definition could not be generalized to cover all circumstances, while Polemarchus view is too relative and/or subjective. Thrasymachus Seeing how Socrates has been able to debunk the two popular beliefs of justice, Thrasymachus entered the conversation hastily offering a definition of justice that he believes to be better and more accurate. He argued that justice is merely the advantage of that which is stronger. He defends his definition as the advantage of other person aside from the just person himself. According to the statement of Thrasymachus, the person who is just is usually in a disadvantageous position, especially since most of the people are living with injustice. Those who do injustice, as can be observed generally, rise as stronger than those people who try to be just. This illuminates the idea that justice is a convention.   Justice, Thrasymachus believes, is meant to deter the action of the people to benefit other people. Thus he concludes that it would be more rational if justice would be ignored as a whole. To this view, another thing needs further clarification aside from the meaning of justice. The question involves if justice must be done or as Thrasymachus believes, must be ignored. Socrates first tried to clarify whether or not Thrasymachus have been imposing that injustice is actually the right thing to do or if Thrasymachus is advocating injustice over justice. Since by saying that justice is the advantage of that which is stronger, he holds that it is just to acquire more and more of power, wealth and everything else that makes one stronger. At the end of the argument, Socrates has been able to demonstrate how crude it would be to consider injustice as a virtue since it is contrary to wisdom which is a virtue. Furthermore, since Thrasymachus have presented an argument concerning following the instructions of those who are stronger, then it follows according to Socrates, that justice is adhering to certain rules. However, this rules which are set by the ruler/s might not be the right rules after all; as what we could find in the past, wherein leaders are very prone to commit certain errors. There are leaders who even act solely for his advantage, disregarding the efforts and sacrifices of the citizens. Socrates question, if following such ruler/s could still account for justice. Obviously, it does not. Thus, Socrates adds, that justice must be something that promotes the common good. Lastly, Socrates ended up arguing that justice is something that is a desirable virtue, while injustice is contrary to that. Thrasymachus is considered to be a Sophist. Since, he cannot withstand the arguments presented by Socrates; Thrasymachus have accused Socrates of cheating. In the dialogue he has with Socrates, Thrasymachus is portrayed as someone who would not let anyone to be better than him self. His stubbornness and unwillingness to be persuaded along with his constant doubt demonstrate that he would rather live following his false beliefs rather than to be persuaded by someone else. It can be seen on the way in which he defines justice, as that of promoting the interest of that which is stronger. In his dialogue with Socrates, it seems that he’s trying his best to become the stronger by showing everyone most especially to Socrates, that his view regarding justice is correct. At the end, when he could not find a way to further argue against Socrates, he accused him of deception. Discussion The traditional view on justice as have been shown in the Republic could be rooted on Hesoid, who view justice as following certain set of action. One has to be just because if he does not follow the set of actions that were ordained by the Gods, he would be punished and if he follows, he would be rewarded. However, in the time of Socrates and Plato, the view that indeed the Gods blessed those who act just was disregarded since many people who do injustices are seen to be better off than those who are just. This shall be the explanation on the views of justice made by Glaucon, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus. Challenge   Socrates would have to prove that justice is not only good in appearance, he would have to show that indeed, there is a higher level of morality which is beyond human conventions and that it must be followed not merely because of the rewards and punishment that goes with it, but because it is something compelling and universally desirable to do so. This has been the focus of Book II. A further elaboration of what should a just and an unjust man shall do is then presented through a discussion of a story about a mythical ring that would make a man invisible at will. According to the myth, unless men are stupid, a simpleton or just plainly insane, if nobody else could see him he would do unjust things. Indeed, it was always beneficial that men shall appear just and do injustice unknowingly. According to the arguments laid by Adeimantus and Glaucon, men naturally do injustice and it is out of question, since there are several instances wherein man would think that the action is just with respect only to its appearance, whatever the intention might be. It is common for man to give alms for instance, and it is a just action in fact. Whether the money comes from a just or unjust means is out of the question, provided that no one really knows where it came from. The Ideal State In Book III of the Republic, Socrates began to construct an â€Å"ideal just state†.   He does this in able to show that in order to clearly show justice, it shall first be presented without the presence of injustices. In doing so, he discusses that the evils that beset mankind may not come from God for God is all-good, ultimately, evil comes from man himself, in his selfishness and arrogance arise injustice. In Book IV, the ideal state is already finished.   Socrates intends to show that a just state is a state that shall display happiness. Happiness in this sense shall not be composed mainly of the material things, for the citizens of the â€Å"ideal just state† would be happy only if they would be able to do what they have to do.With respect to the ideal state that Socrates has proposed, he concluded that it shall contain wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. Justice is attained when the citizens have practiced his function well. Conclusion In Plato’s republic, Plato has been able to refute the different views on justice by his contemporaries. At the same tine, he has been successful in providing a clear view on what he believes shall be the concept of justice. That it is a virtue that could only be manifested and work best only if the entire state would do what their individual function is. As the dialogue unfolds, the different views on justice were proven to be misleading and are flaws since it is a view that certain group of people advocates. The view of Cepahalus mainly argues the view that the elder group of people usually holds, Polemarchus on the other hand gives a view of someone who is young and determined while the view of Thrasymachus resembles that which cannot accept that he is wrong. All of these views are primarily concerned in the individual justice, while Plato present a kind of holistic approach to justice stating that it must be in a state level to see its entirety and for it to work more effectively. Works Cited Jowett, B. (1901).   PLATO: THE REPUBLIC . The Colonial Press. New York.