Benefit from Our Service: Save 25%Along with the first order offer - 15% discount (with the code "get15off"), you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
Socrates Claims about Justice
Plato considered a critical question whether it was always important to be just than unjust. In his work, he compared a just city and human being. According to the assertions by Socrates, a relatively good city set on the ground could be characterized as just. Furthermore, in defining justice, he stated that the city would embody the concept being a virtue component of human beings. Indeed, Socrates attempts to answer the question more emphatically through crediting justice with a personal virtue or attribute. However, a further stunning controversy remains in the response of the philosopher. Indeed, he puts side by side a just city and just human beings in the sense that such are good and principled. Socrates makes consistent claims about justice in The Crito and The Republic, and we can accept the conclusions he comes to in the former.
Socrates used a triplet proof mechanism in ascertaining that it was always better to be just than unjust. However, his proofs were highly opposed by poets teachings. Indeed, the bottom-line of The Republic by Plato can be its contribution to the enhancement of ethics. It entails the debate on the essentials of justice and reasons why people should embrace it all the time. Indeed, since Socrates considers this virtue personal taking into account justice within the city, he makes claims how the latter could be arranged. Indeed, The Republic contains the reflection of political questions too. However, it does not mean that both ethics and politics make the dialogue devoid of anxiety.
In particular, some examples given by Socrates concerning a just city and persons explain how knowledge can dominate. They include debates on the essentials of the latter, as well as its objects. The flow of the Platos assertions encompasses a couple of assumptions. For instance, the explanation of the concepts of politics and ethics, particularly in The Republic, entails the preliminary understanding of concrete questions facing Socrates. Such assumptions form the basis, upon which his assertion is grounded. The main question about justice arises from the facet of Cephalus in the dialogue.
According to Cephalus, wealth can save human beings from being unjust, which further implies the ability to smoothen the way to a non-contentious afterlife. However. it creates for Socrates the need to understand what real justice entails. In the prediction of the outcomes, Cephalus failed to comprehensively define justice during a sustainable analysis by Socrates. Instead, both assume the valuable aspect of the concept, as it pertains to human lives.
On the other hand, Thrasymachus claims that justice can be determined conventionally by strong members of society, while the weak remain submissive to the strong and act to serve their individual or group interests. In the light of this argument, the strong can disregard justice and resort to self-fulfillment serving personal interests. However, Socrates terms the Thrasymachus point of view as an immoralist challenge, which poses a significant question about living a just or unjust life. Indeed, Socrates further attempts to oppose the conventional determination of justice proposed by Thrasymachus. In The Republic, Galucon and Adeimantus debate over the assertions why the majority of people treat justice as being not intrinsically valuable, but essential only in the event when an individual is weak to refrain from it. Indeed, they assert that human beings should be portrayed as wrong, and that justice is an essential choice for its sake.
Indeed, Galucon and Adeimantus consider that justice must be chosen regardless of penalties or rewards of those, who are unjust or just, by their fellow people and gods. They will end the debate over this issue, only if Socrates is convicted that it is always good to be just regardless of circumstances or individuals involved, and other factors.
Essentially, Socrates wants to illustrate the basic issues how justice may relate to the goals of just persons with respect to their success or cheerfulness. A person that prefers justice, as a virtue act and a driver of the soul in making it perform its function properly and enabling the individual to live well, is considered happy and blessed. Furthermore, Socrates further asserts that those, who enjoy personal fulfillment, have justice bestowed on them. Indeed, this concept is typical entirely of the best class in society.
In this regard, Socrates shows that acting in a just manner is synonymous to being happy. He expresses the preferential facet of justice as the fact that being just is being happier. According to the Socrates argument, being just is quite essential and offers sufficiency to happiness, which downplays the claim that just is always happier as opposed to unjust.
Consequently, the Socrates argument was followed by a series of rejections, especially with regard to both Glaucon and Adeimantus claims. For instance, the philosopher does not give the definition of justice to answer the question mentioned at the beginning of this essay. In particular, Socrates cannot express justice as happiness. Indeed, he must demonstrate justice in regard with his interlocutors. In the Socrates response about justice, he failed to address both Glaucons and Adeimantus questions.
On the other hand, Socrates failed defining justice through enumerating the types of actions, whereby justice is shown. Indeed, action-types are easily specifiable in a number of ways. Consequently, the necessity of the list of unjust or just action-types is doubtful. Socrates does not take justice for granted. Furthermore, he accepts the challenge posed by Galucon and Adeimantus, which further complicates his intention to take happiness for granted too, like consequentialists. Indeed, Socrates exempts his response concerning the general criteria of the essentials of happiness.
Furthermore, he proceeds to demonstrate happiness as an unsettled aspect. However, justice may constitute happiness on the one hand. In the latter instance, Socrates could be considered right in addressing happiness as unsettled. On the other hand, if Socrates is willing to portray justice and happiness simultaneously, he therefore will not need to assume that just individuals are happier as opposed to the unjust.