WORLDVIEWS AND ETHICS
POP QUIZ #3
Directions: In the next twenty minutes you need to write out an answer to the question below clearly and concisely. Be sure to organize your thoughts so as to have a clear thesis statement supported by evidence. It might be helpful to organize your thoughts into an opening paragraph containing your thesis statement followed by two to three short body paragraphs which detail the reasons why you hold your particular thesis. Once “in-class writing” has been completed you will be allowed to take your answer home so that you may type it up and expand upon it. You are may edit your answer for clarity and add further evidence to your paper. Finally, you will be required to staple this written draft to your “final” typed up and edited draft on Friday Nov. 12. Final Quizzes need only be 1 page long of no less than 300 words but no more than 500. Please turn these two copies in along with posting your answer to the class blog. If you do not turn in your “hand written quiz” with your final copy, your grade will be lowered 1 point from the 5 total points possible.
Question: Using any of the theories of justice and the good from the Republic (Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon or Socrates), tell me if justice is something good only for itself, good for itself and for its consequences or not good in itself but only for its consequences. If you choose to focus on Socrates be sure to integrate one of his defenses of the nature of justice/the good in the City/Soul Analogy, the Tripartite Division of the Soul, the Analogy of the Good, the Divided Line, the forms of Government corresponding to types of souls and/or they Myth of Er into your answer.
Throughout Plato’s Republic, the topic of the nature of justice is under consideration by the main characters. Adiemantus argues that justice is good in itself, regardless of the consequences. On the other hand, Glaucon asserts that justice is not good in itself, but only for its consequences. In response to these arguments, Socrates proves that justice is good in itself and for its consequences. To illustrate his point, he creates an analogy between the sun and the nature of the Good. In his example, the sun is the source of light that gives mankind the ability to view the visible world. The light from the sun unites the eye with the objects that it sees. Without light, the ability to see is useless. Therefore, the sun allows for the understanding of the visible world. The sun also allows for the growth and nourishment of the vegetation on the earth. In the same way, the Good is the source that brings forth knowledge of the truth. The Good also joins its subject (reason) with the object (the issue under consideration). Reason alone cannot discern objects or the consequences of the objects without the Good. With the knowledge of the Good, our souls flourish and grow.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Socrates’ argument that justice is good in itself and for its consequences. Just as the sun provides for the visibility and knowledge of the natural world, justice allows us to view and understand right and wrong actions. Justice unites concepts of the law with personal actions. Without justice, there would be no standard for decent behavior. In the city, justice serves to promote a peaceful society by punishing those who break the law. In this way, a safe environment is created for the city so that it can flourish. Therefore, justice is good in itself and for its benefits to society.
I agree with Socrates’ idea that justice is not good in and of itself, but also good for its consequences. The City/Soul Analogy is the best explanation for this concept. Socrates believed that man, in general, has a selfish nature and that we all work toward achieving whatever we consider the good. He says that we need others in order to attain our goals, and without them, it would be nearly impossible. In the City/Soul analogy, Socrates shows how different forms of government can be compared to the soul in that the soul is like a city because all parts of it need to be in complete harmony in order for it to be at its best.
ReplyDeleteThe Tripartite Soul consists of the appetive, the spirited, and the intellect parts. When these parts are in harmony, then one can truly be happy. Socrates compared this to an aristocratic government. In an aristocracy, the best citizens rule the city and ensure the best for the public. In this form of government, everyone’s needs are met (not always equally, but fairly). Socrates continues the analogy explaining that other forms of government can appear to be the best form, but are not because they can lead to injustice.
In a timocracy, the second best form of government, there is a stress on appearing to be a good person, which is a seeming good. Rulers are not concerned with truly being good, but only with gaining a good name among the citizens of the city. If one’s soul is like a timocracy, then one cannot be truly happy. The third best form of government is the oligarchy, which focuses on wealth and property as means of gaining honor and merit. It also seems to be good, but there is some strife among the rich and the poor within the city, which creates a disharmony. If one’s soul is like a oligarchy, then it is only focused on gaining and not on the balance of all parts of the soul, and this leads to the inability to achieve true happiness. The fourth best type of government is the democracy in which the city is divided because all citizens are focused on attaining personal wealth. This is analogous to a soul whose individual parts are working against each other in order to satisfy its self-interest. Socrates goes on to say that because each person in a democracy is working toward their own self-interest, this leads to tyranny. One person is going be stronger, or more focused or more driven, than the others to achieve their goals and will work to gain person wealth at the expense of the weaker citizens. If a part of a person’s soul is tyrannical, the other parts are neglected, and the person cannot be wholly happy.
Thesis: Justice is only good for the consequences it achieves.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, justice is not something created just itself but rather for what it can achieve, because without active results, the definition of justice diminishes to what is only seemingly just. This in turn will result in a society based upon the second perversion of a society, which Socrates states as Timocracy.
This would mean people would only concern themselves with what will bring them the most credit to their individual reputations, rather than putting in the work necessary to benefit society as a whole. As such I find it difficult to even define justice as just that, without including the active consequences it should bring.
As Socrates also states in his argument with Glaucon over what is the true nature of man, he says in order for Justice to be maintained through a society or a city, all members can never hope to achieve absolute autonomy from one another. They have to be able to do whatever it is their natural inclination is to do without having to worry that the intentions of those around them may not be as well meaning as theirs
This can only be done through the enforcing of consequences because without them, I feel people will quickly revert to Glaucon’s opinion of the nature of man, by which I mean the radical mistrust of others, because they no justice to be only a façade and as such they cannot rely on the social contract which comes from Justice with consequences to protect them.
Therefore, in order to achieve a common good where every individual in a society does one’s own but for the benefit of everyone. There must be rules in place to enforce the message that if you do wrong or do good you will either be punished or rewarded depending on the situation. Also, punishing or rewarding undeservingly in my mind is the same as seeming justice or simply a perversion of justice all together and therefore cannot be considered justice at all because the consequences brought on were not made with good intentions, as such only concrete active results which are both deserved and needed by the society as a whole, can ever hope to achieve the betterment of a community.
Glaucon believed that we were all unjust. Under this supposition the purpose of the city becomes to suppress our unjust human nature. He describes three different classes of good: Good for the sake of its consequence; Good for its own sake; and good for both its own sake and for its consequences. Glaucon says that most think of justice as a good for the sake of its consequences, not for both its consequences and its own sake. It is something that we all have to put up with. We need it to shield ourselves from other, greater evils. We need it because, as inherently unjust people, we cannot trust ourselves from each other. As humans we create an unspoken social contract with one another in order to maintain some kind of order.
ReplyDeleteThe social contract is a compromise we make with one another, agreeing to act just. We only use this kind of justice because we are afraid of what would happen without it. It is a kind of defense mechanism. Glaucon gives an example to expose the inner working of the social contract by invoking the myth of the ring of Gyges, a legendary accessory that is said to make the wearer invisible. If one were to possess such ability, the ability to not be seen, he would ostensibly be freed from the constraints of the social contract and be able to act according to his unjust desires. He would be free to indulge in his materialistic desires, able to freely steal and take advantage of his lustful desires, freed from any fear of being identified.
I think this reflects in the modern world the kind of effect described by Michel Foucault as “Panopticism.” Foucault suggests that society acts as a kind of surveillance system. The social contract is a perfect example of this. The man with the mystical ring of Gyges could have acted on his desires before he had the ring, but he would have risked being caught. It wouldn’t have been guaranteed but it was a chance. Imagine, if you will, a security camera at Wal-Mart. Those big black orbs on the ceiling may or may not actually have cameras in them, but because of the risk the shopper is inclined to act accordingly and not steal or commit any acts that may get them in trouble. The members of society can be equated with the security cameras at Wal-Mart.
One must always worry about whether or not he will have to deal with the justice of the social contract and this risk is usually enough to persuade people against acting unjustly. People are just because they have to be, not simply for the sake of justice. Glaucon goes n to point out that it is not in people’s natural interest to be “just” and that if there were no restraints such as the social contract, the most happy people would be the most unjust.
I agree with Glaucon’s third description of justice in that it is not good in itself but only for its consequences. Glaucon describes the natural state of humanity as “a city of pigs” and after reading the Republic and his reasoning for this statement I would have to concur.
ReplyDeleteJustice can be described as the compromise between maximum pleasures and complete pain, a compromise between the best and the worst. Human beings are inherently unjust people. If everyone lived in their perfect world, they could act on any of their pleasures without suffering any of the consequences. Obviously we do not live in this consequence free world, instead in our world one man’s pleasure could cause another man his ultimate intense pain. If each person acted on each of his or her desires, the world would be completely chaotic. Each human being would rather be unjust but instead acts accordingly to the social contract in fear and hope of preventing this complete chaos and in order to prevent unjust events from happening to them.
This innate, selfish human nature is demonstrated in the Myth of Gyges. In short, a guard is given a ring which makes him invisible from everyone else. He is free to act on any of his desires without enduring the traditional repercussions. By taking away all possible negative consequences of his actions, he is reverting to his humanly natural state of acting in accordance with his desires and not acknowledging the harm it causes anything else. He is escaping any punishment as no one could prove his actions, whether they were moral or immoral, just or unjust. He is accessing all possible pleasures as any human being in his or her natural state would do without the risk of punishments and ignoring any environmental hindrances on accessing such pleasures, because there would be none.
As I said earlier, each human would love to live in a state like this where they need not worry about the consequences of their actions. But, humans realize that if everyone were acting to fulfill each of their desires that the world would be filled with madness and disorder. It would not function. So, to avoid this state of chaos humans follow a social contract. The weak come together to avoid suffering. By following the social contract people are settling for the balance between complete pleasure and complete pain. We follow the social contract because we are afraid of a world where everyone acts on all pleasures and desires. The social contract suppresses us from acting in accordance to all of our desires. The social contract forces humans to settle in a happy medium between the best and the worst, complete pleasure and complete pain.
Therefore, justice is no good in itself. Without the consequences, there would be no point in justice. Justice suppresses human’s desires, which is not a good thing. The good arises when, and only when, we acknowledge the consequences of acting justly. Justice is not good in itself but only for its consequences.
Glaucon describes three different reasons for desiring good. First, “good” is something sought out because of the consequences, second, “good” is desired for the sake of good, and third, the aspiration of good for both reasons. Glaucon states the first of the three different reasons as the most common explanation for the feelings toward justice. Though justice, according to Glaucon and the first explanation, is a strain on everybody, it is also necessary because without it, people would be more miserable because of the injustice that is done to them. The social contract theory of justice and the good is the one that I am able to find most plausible.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of the social contract is that we agree to not do injustice to one another. This provides control for everybody, even though these people may not normally act just towards one another. Through the social contract, we do not have to worry about there being an absence of consequences for when we are not treated justly by others.
Glaucon accompanies this argument with the story of the ring of Gyges. The ring of Gyges is tool for invisibility. Whoever wears this ring is able to go unseen and do whatever they please. Glaucon argues that whoever wears this ring would not be able to be just in their doings because they would not have to worry about punishment for their actions.
People who act unjust gain more. With the ring of Gyges, the beholder is able to acquire anything they like without being noticed. The beholder is able to hustle material objects without the consequences of being caught, and without the guilt that is provided through punishment, there is no need to be just. Justice is not good in itself, but the consequences make justice important and good.
In the Republic, Glaucon describes the good in three ways, the good is for its own sake and not for its consequences, the good is for its own sake and for its consequences and that the good is for its consequences and not for its own sake. I would have to say that the good is for both its own sake and for its consequences. I believe that people are naturally selfish and greedy and that justice is what keeps us grounded. I think without justice, the world would be full of people going out and doing whatever they wanted and they wouldn’t think about the consequences of their actions. I think without justice, the good would be only for its consequences.
ReplyDeleteI think that the good is for its own sake and for its consequences and take fashion as an example. For instance, many girls and guys wear something because they like it and because they think they look good wearing it but they are also wearing it just to get others to look at them and to get a reaction from them, especially when girls wear revealing clothes. When girls wear revealing clothes, they might not always be wearing it to get a reaction from others but they can’t stop it from happening and that’s a risk that they have to take but some girls wear clothes because they look good in them but also to spark a reaction from others around them. I don’t agree with this at all because I don’t think we as “human beings” living in the same world should wear something or do something just so see what others are going to do or say.
I think that’s what is wrong in the world today. Too many people rely on others to make themselves feel good about their life and their actions. I think everyone has their own different vision of justice and that’s why we have criminals but the fact that we all have a solid form of justice that we have to live by keeps almost everyone from spiraling out of control.
In my opinion, I concur with Socrates belief that justice is not only good in and of itself but also for its consequences. The reason I say this is because I feel that not only is seeking justice good in order to be just and fair, because after all, justice is a trait that is respected and sought after since justice itself is enforced, valid, and a system/application of the law. But the consequence that comes after one has sought justice is also especially good because making things morally just is the responsible thing to do when so many times people choose to just “look the other way”. Instead of being myopic and only “staring at the wall”, being just and seeking justice is a desirable trait and good in and of itself as well as for its consequences so that society will perform to standards and those who are guilty are held accountable for their actions.
ReplyDeleteOne example that can be used to illustrate my point comes from Socrates analogy of the Sun and the good that is just. Socrates states that justice is good in and of itself as well as for its consequences because since the sun helps bring light to man and helps man see things, that is the visible aspect of the good of the just. Without the rays of the sun, we would not be able to see just as we would not be able to see what is the true good of what is just. From the aspect of the consequences of what is just, the sun also provides nourishment and growth for humans, plants, and other forms of cell life. Just as the consequences of justice help provide growth for what we learn to be important and true.
I believe that through Socrates’ Forms of Government corresponding to types of souls, we can find that justice is good for itself and for its consequences. The ideal soul and form of government, to Socrates, is the Aristocratic city that reflects the good. This society is ruled by a government of the best which results in a harmonious city. Intellect is the ruler of this society and the person or persons in charge are the closest to seeing the form of the Good. The next type of government is the Timocracy which would consist of rulers of the seeming good. Leaders in this form of government are honor lovers of the spirited soul who were probably previously soldiers. Oligarchy, or rule through property qualifications is next on Socrates list of governments corresponding to types of souls. The Good is turned into goods and rule is established through force. Oligarchical leaders are lovers of honor to gain money or property. The fourth and final government Socrates describes is Democracy. He describes this society as based on honor in wealth and the majority, poor people, having hate of the rich. The hate for the ruling class creates a conflict of two cities and a predisposition to revolution.
ReplyDeleteThe good for itself and for its consequences can be argued through the Aristocratic soul and form of government. Someone who knows the good would know how to ensure proper justice throughout the land and in doing so, harmony would be achieved. Justice in itself is good because it comes from the form of the Good. Its consequences in society are seen as limiting the pain of others through criminal actions by the few. A harmonious city would achieve an understanding of the Good through real justice and not need to limit pain. I feel that democracy is a compromise of the idea of a true Aristocratic government. It is difficult to truly have someone who knows the Good to rule your society, but through free speech and free elections by the people, democracy is the next best thing.
Post 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteGlaucon argues against the value of justice for itself. Glaucon states that humans only desire justice for its consequences and that man is by nature, unjust. Glaucon reflects on the trouble a just man endures in trying to persuade the unjust masses, and he asks Socrates (who later dies for the sake of his justice) to demonstrate that justice is worth the trouble, for he himself doubts that it is worth the ridicule of the masses. He argues that being just is a liability and that if not for the consequences human beings would act unjustly. In the context of Glaucon’s meaning, justice is the median between “good” and “evil” actions; Humans enter into a social contract that agrees that each will not do harm to one other, out of their fear of becoming the victim of unjust acts. Glaucon provides the myth of the story of Gyges, wherein a shepherd initially refuses to look at his master’s wife, though offered, but when a ring makes him invisible to the world, he kills the king and gets the queen, along with committing other crimes. The story suggests that if human beings could act unjustly with no fear of consequences, such as being seen or facing punishment, then they would do so, for it would be in their best interest. Adeimantus adds to Glaucon’s argument and alleges that people benefit from appearing just, rather than being just. He states that fathers praise “seeming”, and “seeming” hides injustices because if an individual can persuade the masses that their way is the right way, then justice is obsolete. Glaucon refutes that justice is good for its own sake and argues that an unjust person is happier than a just man.
To the contrary, Socrates argues that justice is good for the sake of itself and for its consequences. Socrates states that he cannot define justice, but offers the example of the tripartite soul, which describes that justice includes achieving a harmony, with the benefit of happiness, in the three parts of the soul. The analogy of the tripartite soul explains that the soul consists of the intellect, spirited, and appetitive parts. The rational part of the soul discerns reality from appearances and makes decisions according to reason and rules over the other parts of the soul. It yearns for truth and is not satisfied with mere appearances. The spirited part of the soul acts on what is best, according to reason, but if left to its own accord, the good would be the “seeming good”. The appetitive part of the soul consists of human desires of excess and of doing’s one’s own, and if left to its own desires, the good would be relative to its desires. However, in a just soul, it obeys and is ruled by reason. Through the example of the tripartite soul, Socrates establishes that being just is having harmony in the soul; when each part does its own, according to its function, just as in the just city. It alleges that justice is good in itself, and for its consequences of happiness as the result of harmony in the soul.
Post 2 of 2
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that justice is good for itself and for its consequences. It is impossible to imagine justice without its consequences, yet without justice there would be many of negative consequences—therefore justice is good for its own sake because lack of it, is not perceivable. Also, justice is good in itself because lack of it would produce injustice. Individuals, as well as societies need it to co-exist. Without justice in the city, societies would be chaotic, and without justice in the soul, individuals would be unhappy, for they would not be operating according to their intended purpose and function. However, consequences motive individuals and cities to act justly. Without rewards and punishments, individuals would act unjustly, as most would believe it to be to their betterment to pursue the appetitive part of their soul. Since individuals internally know right from wrong, and ultimately want truth and need a harmonious state of being, then this would render unhappiness. For these reasons, I consider that justice is good for its own sake, as well as good because of its consequences.
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates uses the function argument in defining justice and sees justice as "working at that which one is naturally best suited." Socrates states that justice is good in itself and for its consequences and is worthwhile. Socrates uses the City/Soul analogy to compare the similarities between a city and the soul of man. According to Socrates, man realizes a need for others and works with others in trying to attain the good. The Triparte division of the soul consists of the intellect (rulers), spiritual (guardians and warriors), and appetitive (workers) parts. The three divisions correspond to the three classes of a just society. For the success of a city, these divisions must be in harmony to allow for justice among the citizens.
ReplyDeleteSocrates describes humans’ natural tendency for corruption and believes a philosopher is needed to rule because a philosopher knows the form of the Good. The Sun is considered the Good which allows for the intelligibility of all things. The sun is a source that helps provides life by giving nutrition for objects and allows the objects to be visible by others, allowing for their existence to be known. An aristocratic government is detailed as the ideal government in which a harmonious city can exist. Other governments such as a timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny are discussed and their inadequacies are noted. In a timocracy, focus strays from the Good to the seeming good. An oligarchy strays from the Good to goods and in a democracy Good does not exist. Lastly, in a tyranny the Good becomes the only good at which an individual works at while ignoring other aspects of life.
In conclusion, Socrates’ belief that justice is good in itself and for its consequences can be further supported by the myth of Er. According to the myth of Er, the soul is immortal and the morally just are rewarded while the morally unjust are punished after death. Justice is worthwhile and its benefits can be reaped in the afterlife.
I believe that Socrates’ ideas of consequences are correct because they most reflect what my beliefs are of the good. Socrates believes that something can only be good if the consequences are good, as well. For example, if a decision is made that you thought was good but that choice has negative consequences, then said decision was not good to begin with.
ReplyDeleteSocrates describes something called the “tripartite division of the soul”. His theory states that everyone’s soul is divided into three parts; intellect, the spirited, and the appetitive. The soul can only be happy and harmonious if all three aspects are equally divided. He speaks of this further by comparing the soul to a city. A city needs three parts to maintain order; rulers (intellect), guardians and warriors (the spirited), and workers (the appetitive).
Socrates agrees that some forms of government can be harmonious; however, they can lead to problems over time. These forms of government are; a timocracy, an aristocracy, and an oligarchy. In a timocracy, honor is valued above all things. However, there can be debates on whether certain honorable actions are in fact good. If they are not then the order in that society can be jeopardized. In an aristocracy, the “greatest” people of the city rule. However, these “great” people can become corrupt over time. And, thirdly, an oligarchy is ruled by those who have the most wealth. Yet, as we have seen in our own society, money can make individuals do selfish, irresponsible things.
Socrates also had three paradoxes that he believed should occur. He believed that if these three paradoxes were to occur that harmony would emerge in the world. His paradoxes included; women and men should be equal, cohabitation/eugenics, and philosophers should be kings. To elaborate on cohabitation/eugenics, Socrates believed that everyone should live together, only certain people could mate in order to make a healthy, strong race, unworthy children are disposed of, and everyone should call adults of a certain age “mom” or “dad”. No one would know who their parents were in this society.
Witty Title
ReplyDeleteThe topic of discussions among the three main characters in the Republic was what the definition of justice is. There are three main characters in this book who were Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. They were arguing about if 1) justice is good within itself, no matter the consequences, 2) just is good within itself and its consequences, and 3) justice is not good within itself but only for the consequences. Adeimantus was the one that was arguing for justice is only good within itself not for the consequences. It was Socrates that argued for justice being good within itself and for its consequences and Glaucon argued for justice is not good within itself but only for the consequences. The main person I agreed with most in this text was Socrates. The reason I agree with Socrates is because of the examples he uses to defend his case against Glaucon and Adimantus. He used the sun as an example of good. The sun is good because it allows for humans to come into the light literally and mentally. The good sun shows light to the objects that were hidden from our eyes and permitted the people to see these things that are true. The world of non-real objects disappears because the sun shows the people the visible world where they can grow in understanding of how the things around them work. The sun is also good because it can also be the source of nourishment for growing things on the earth. By stepping into the light of the sun, a person can gain knowledge of the truth that surrounds them. I like to think that the good is knowledge, which makes people grow and understand that without justice then those who have done bad things are not punished. It is a personal satisfaction because it makes a person feel good inside when the correct thing is done in a bad situation. It allows for decent behavior in human beings instead of pure anarchy and justice in the cities are there to make sure that humans are doing the right thing and promoting peace among the people. It is a good within itself because a person feels personal satisfaction doing the right thing, and its consequences because the person that made the wrong deserved what they got.
Justice must be both good for itself and good for its consequences, for justice cannot be harmful. If justice were good only for itself, then the results may prove harmful in the future. If justice were only good for its consequences, then harm may be caused in the original action. Socrates makes his point most clear (to me) with his tripartite soul argument. In his argument of the soul, Socrates establishes three separate realms of the human character within the soul: Intellect, Spirited, and Appetive. He then discusses the problems with allowing any of the three to dominate over the other two. These problems essentially are an unbalanced person, either because they possess intellect but no ability to accomplish their visions (freedom V. intellect seems to be implicit here); or because the person is able to accomplish desires but is unable to foresee the consequences of their activities.
ReplyDeleteThe point is simple: harmony is the driving force behind the Good. Disharmony yields disunity which yields problems. If you are more intellectual than appetive, you will encounter problems. If your city is more appetive than intelligent in nature, their will be problems. Good in itself must also be good for its consequences, or else their will be a disharmony, disunity and problems along the way.
Of course, humanity is imperfect. Socrates outlined hypothetical ideal types for the person and the city. These types will never be reached. I personally am a big fan of balance through imbalance (in fact, it’s how I live my life). Excessive intellect can counter the negatives of excessive appetite and vise versa, insomuch as allowing an individual to successfully live their life to a natural conclusion. Meanwhile, an excessively intellectual person is counterbalanced by an excessively appetive person within a city. As long as the collection of individuals yields something near a balanced scale between the three different realms of the soul, society will survive.
I disagree with Glaucon's pessimistic view of humanity; I believe justice is good in and of itself and for its consequences. If a just society rewards actual feelings and acts of justice, then its people will naturally be just in order to minimize their pain. People don't get rewarded for upholding the law because that is its natural intent and purpose (ie. something we're all supposed to do), but disobeying the law obviously reaps punishment because doing so upsets the natural order. The Ring of Gigyes allegory shows that even with the temptations of seeming unjust, a truly just person will use their own skills and powers to better society, not to destroy it; the shepherd’s external appearance of justice was deceiving, as his weak morals allowed him to abuse the ring. Socrates argues that when the three classes of a hypothetical republic (the guardians, philosophers, and the appetitive) act in unsuppressed harmony, a society can function best — another definition of justice.
ReplyDeleteJustice allows for the mutual protection of everyone within a social construct. With a select class of guardians protecting the city, certain liberties will have to be taken in order to ensure a guardian’s loyalty — protection from certain songs and lyrics, proper training, shared kinship and the belief in the noble lie. The noble lie that the guardians are somehow more superior to the commoners may be deceiving, but if the lie will keep everyone intact and let society continue functioning, then the lie is worth the effort.
It is Socrates’ opinion that justice goes in the second kind of good, one that exists for its own sake AND for the consequences that come from it. He expresses that “…the one that anyone who is going to be blessed with happiness must love both because of itself and because of its consequences.” When Glaucon disagrees, using the story of the Ring of Gyges to counter Socrates, saying that justice/good is purely wanted for its consequences, Socrates begins by saying that there are two kids of political justice; justice that is of the state and then justice of the individual. What Glaucon fails to realize is that a truly just person would act in the ‘good’ whether they were wearing the ring or not.
ReplyDeleteSocrates then begins the city/soul analogy in which he builds up an entire city in which everyone is specialized to only do what they do, where everyone is dependant on everyone else. He sees that man is selfish and nature and only by depending on others can he work towards discovering the good.
While I agree with Socrates in the Justice and Good exists both because of itself and because of its consequences, I believe that people are inherently good while he believes that it is a natural tendency for humans to be corrupt. I think that most people want to do good always, but then the question comes into ‘what is individual good’ and that’s a different topic.
He also mentions the analogy of the sun and the good and how the sun. The Sun allows for visibility. Without the sun it would be impossible to make sure that there is something there. We might have an idea of something, but how would we know if it is concrete of real? In the same way, the Good is what sheds light on what truth is. Without Good, reason would have to stand alone, a mere shadow of what truth is or could be.
Justice is something good for itself and for its consequences. When someone tries to do a good deed, they do it not just because it is the right thing to do but to get in the good graces of others. Then when that person needs help they can bring up the good that was done to make the other person feel obligated to return the favor. People may think that a person is helping simply to gain their favor, but the person is doing it because it’s the right thing to do. For example, a firefighter helps people because it is the right thing to do and also because he is devoted to do so because of his profession. However, they do not mind getting praised or noticed for their good deeds. There are also people who do good deeds not only because it is the right thing to do, but to receive recognition or praise. Even when a person does intend to be praised for his or her efforts he or she will still enjoy receiving it as a consequence. For example, a guy saves this woman’s life from a murderer and she gives him a large sum of money as thanks. Chances are good that he will take the money even though he did not plan on receiving it.
ReplyDeletePeople do just things because they feel some sort joy or satisfaction for making other people happy, and the consequence of doing these just things will allow them a better chance in entering heaven after they die. Even though people don’t usually think of this as a consequence, it is something mostly everyone strives for. I found that this bears some similarities to Socrates’ “Myth of Er” story where he talks about how a person goes either up or down depending on the choices he or she makes when alive. This shows that their always going to be consequences for our actions because we are judged by the way one acted in life. However, when people are alive they do good things without usually thinking about how it will affect them when they die. They may not intend to receive a consequence for their actions, but if given the choice they accept a simple thanks or some object like money if offered.
The Socratic Forms of Government
ReplyDeleteIn Plato’s Republic, Socrates explains that justice is good for itself and for its consequences through the five various forms of government of aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. Socrates outlines that aristocracy reigns supreme for justice.
Using aristocracy as the ideal form of government, Socrates promotes the idea of justice being good for itself and for its consequences. Aristocratic government is best because it is ruled by the best, namely, the philosopher kings. When proper philosopher kings rule, the just man lives among the just city. Justice is provided for the city because the base of philosophic rule is intellect. This allows the aristocratic government to provide the just city with harmony.
Socrates uses timocracy as inferior because while aristocracy judges by the good, timocracy only judges by the seeming good. The rulers in the timocratic city are lovers of honor. The rulers are not good, but only characters that want the image of seeming good. They are rulers solely because of the merit in of their “good” name. This provides a dangerous Homeric chaos as seen in the Iliad. They desire what Homer may or may not have been socially criticizing, namely, the glory of war, victory, and the spirit of competition. The sell their souls for a compromise between intellect and application for spirit. The just man is certainly worse off in the city ruled by timocracy.
The oligarchic rulers are the sons of the timoarchs. Socrates places oligarchy even lower because of its requirement of property and not intellect as a necessity for ruling. Timocracy emerges out of the desire for further luxury resulting from dissatisfaction in the ruling class of timocracy. This nagging for further luxury creates an inferiority complex among the son of the timoarch developing in a pursuit for the material good and not the good. When the rulers only aim towards the material good, there can be no room for the just man pursuing the good.
In a democracy, Socrates says that the emotions and desires of the populace rule creating an overall chaotic pursuit of the material good. Unlike oligarchy, not only are the rulers pursuing the material good but the people as a whole as well. This only develops a false impression that wealth is the key to the good. Therefore, because the majority is shouting for equality with the rulers, the idea of equality is no good. By allowing the passions of the day to rule in pursuit of the material good for the majority, this only results in constant strife between social classes. In turn, the just man surely cannot dwell in his pursuit for the good because after all, in democracy, man only becomes a measure to tyranny.
Finally, Socrates uses tyranny as the absolute worst form of government possible. This develops because of the abundance of freedoms granted to those under democratic rule. Democracy collapses under the weight of individual lust for power and the luxurious good. A capable ruler takes power fueled by the people’s confirmation that he is the one to grant them equality. But, the ruler only becomes corrupt with power and regresses into pursuing only his desires and false perception of the good.
Socrates explains that justice is good for itself and for its consequences through the five various forms of government of aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny in Plato’s Republic with aristocracy seeking justice.
In the Republic, Plato describes how Socrates must dialogue with Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, and Glaucon to explain his philosophy of justice and the Good. Socrates begins by explaining what the Good and justice are, but he ends up bearing the responsibility of proving why it is better to be just and strive for the Good—he must defend justice to Thrasymachus in particular. Thrasymachus believes that it is better for each person to be unjust and feels that to strive for justice is an unnatural restraint on our desires. Socrates disagrees and states that justice is a virtue of the soul and is therefore desirable. True justice is a type of good that is valuable in itself AND for its consequences—it can improve the soul of the individual and enrich society. Socrates believes that in order for something to do what is good and fulfill its purpose, it itself must be good.
ReplyDeleteJustice is one such form of the overall Good, which exists outside of the realm of independently recognizable entities. To demonstrate an explanation of the Good Socrates employs various analogies. He explains that the Good can be compared to the sun. Both the sun and the Good make all individual things intelligible, but these things themselves are not the Good—they are only forms of the overarching Good. Like the sun helps plants and living things to grow and thrive, the Good helps to give life to individual forms such as justice.
Socrates also describes the Good and the discovery of justice through the allegory of the cave. This allegory explains how people come to know the Good. Socrates supposes that there are prisoners in a cave who are only exposed to the shadows of puppets. These individuals have a limited perspective because they can only look directly forward and have no knowledge that anything beyond the images in the cave exist. In the cave, individuals are rewarded for what they think they know about the shadows of the puppets, rather than for knowing reality or truth. He goes on to show how the prisoners in the cave begin to question their reality and gradually start seeing forms of the Good and reality—first only the shadows of reality, then reflections, and finally they see the real objects or real forms of the Good. The prisoners sometimes feel the desire to go back into the cave and view the shadows of the puppets again, but nonetheless they are on the track to discovering what is real and what is good. For the first time, they are confronted with the notion that what they thought they knew in the cave was only a construct. Socrates offers this allegory to demonstrate how all people are essentially prisoners of our own narrow perspectives and that it is through a process of questioning and confronting false beliefs that we can discover reality and see the true forms of the Good.
Justice is only good for its consequences, and not for just being good in itself. I believe in the thought process of Thrasymachus, who says that Justice does not have to do with being good, but with being powerful. Might is right, if you will. He believes that Justice isn’t even worth believing in, and that it in fact hinders our potential.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this not because I am an unjust person, but because I believe that people get caught up in the idea of being just, thus deterring from the actual purpose. As odd as this seems, I hold the boy scouts as a prime example for why being just is a power tool, and people aren’t really just they just seem just. First off, the Boy Scouts are a corporation. They have sponsors, sponsor events themselves, and have a say in certain things that happen. And their word is more influential, more POWERFUL, then others, because of their reputation. And that reputation is one of being just and good. But why do boy scouts do these acts of justice and good? Is it for the honor and the right to say they did? The good feeling they get when they do it? Or is it for something else entirely. They receive badges every time a good deed is completed. The more badges received, the better a boy scout you are. In fact, after a certain amount is earned, the Boy Scout can be promoted, earning a better, more prestigious title. This can be argued, and Thrasymachus would agree, that these acts of so called justice and good done by boy scouts are solely for the power that they solicit, and not for actual justice and good. This proves my point that society gets wrapped up in the act of justice and good and not the meaning of the acts, which is why I side with the argument of Thrasymachus.
Glaucon had the insightful perspective that all beings are inherently unjust. He concluded this after contemplating human nature and their natural desires. Glaucon derived three separate classes to describe the good; Good for the sake of its consequence; good and for its own sake; and lastly, good for both its own sake and its consequences. I agree with Glaucon in that the first class is the most relevant and plausible to human nature. The “good” functions because of the results it provides for the community and the individual, not for the good itself.
ReplyDeleteWith this perspective, Glaucon sees the city’s role as something to suppress and control our unjust nature. He describes humanity’s natural state as a “city of pigs” as everyone is seeking their own satisfaction and impulsive desires. In order to avoid chaos and maintain order, humans must learn to suppress their desires and behave in a “civil” manner. By conforming to a social contract, everyone shares a kind of power with a predominant function to prevent injustice. While Glaucon claims that humans may find this strenuous, it is infinitely better than the alternative. The good is a social construct that is determined by the community we live in. Different civilizations will have various perceptions of the good as different society’s demand different results.
This position can be defended well by the Myth of Gyges. In this tale, a guard acquires a special ring that allows him to become invisible to everyone else in the community. This gives him the authority to act upon any of his desires while avoiding all consequences and repercussions. This gives him the chance to remove himself from the social contract, freeing him to act in an unjust manner and ignore all social norms and expectations. As a result, he seeks the satisfaction of his natural desires without considering its impact on others.
This tale describes the way in which the strong majority of human beings would behave under these conditions. As a result of the basic social contract, humans behave civilly not only to keep the society functioning and to maintain order, but so they can succeed in the society by conforming to these social norms. The Myth of Gyges describes the way in which any basic human being would likely behave if given the power to be removed from the social contract without any consequence. We would behave almost primitively, seeking what we desire and ignoring the good of the community. After considering this natural inclination, it can fairly be concluded that the good only functions for its results and consequences. If there were no consequences or socially constructed norms, there would be no use for a good.
In Plato’s Republic, justice is discussed from several points of view. The question of justice in relation to good is particularly prevalent in the discussion, and many different arguments are made as to the nature of justice. One of the philosophers involved in the discussion is Glaucon. Glaucon argues with Socrates on several points regarding justice. His central argument is that justice does not truly exist in man’s nature, but must be fabricated in the form of a social contract. Glaucon holds that man is inherently unjust, and each is out for his own good. However, man also recognizes that if everyone just did as they pleased, they would all suffer at each other’s hands. So, in order to form a functional society, a social contract is enacted which forces humans to abide by a universally accepted code of conduct, which helps to maintain a “just” society. Through this argument, Glaucon presents a view of justice as a good that exists not for itself, but solely for its consequences. His understanding of human nature is negative, and therefore his understanding of justice is that of something constructed in order to balance the dominating nature of man. Glaucon’s understanding of justice is also very political in that he sees justice as purely a social construct that is necessary for a society to function. Glaucon’s need for justice stems from his perceived lack of trust between humans, and his social contract serves to compensate for this lack of trust by forcing a social understanding between men.
ReplyDeleteIn Book II of the Repubic, Glaucon states that all goods can be divided into three classes: things that we desire only for their consequences and not for its consequences, things that we desire only for their own sake and for its consequences, and things we desire not for its own sake but only for consequences. Glaucon argues for that good is not for its own sake but only for consequences.
ReplyDeleteGlaucon says that majority of people view justice as a necessary evil. We allow ourselves to suffer in order to avoid the greater evil that would come forth if we got rid of it. Justice stems from human weakness and vulnerability. We make a social contract agreeing to be just with one another. This is done because we can all suffer from each other’s injustices. We do this because we know we will suffer more without justice than with justice. Justice is not something practiced for its own sake but something one engages in out of fear and weakness.
To emphasize his point, Glaucon talks about the Ring of Gygges. He tells us to imagine a just man is given a ring which makes him invisible. Glaucon says that once the just man has possession of this ring, he can act unjustly with no fear of reprisal. Glaucon also claims that even the most just man would behave unjustly if he were to have possession of this ring. He would indulge himself in materialistic and lustful urges. Glaucon says that this tale proves that people are only just because they are afraid of the punishment for injustice. No one is just because justice is desirable in itself. Thus Glaucon says that man’s nature is that men are all unjust.
I agree with Glaucon in a sense that we make a social contract so that justice is brought in order to prevent injustice. Otherwise, society as it is would be in utter chaos. Laws and punishment are made so that there is a just society, I also somewhat agree with him when he says that man’s nature is that men are all unjust. With the tale of the Ring of Gyges, if I was placed in that situation, honestly, I would do everything to benefit me. I have always believed that human nature has always been selfish. When it comes to survival, each human would try their best to survive. There are cases in which some people have given up their lives in order to save other peoples lives. Yes, human nature is selfish but in the end it is up to the person themselves to decide whether or not they are willing to be selfish. In all, I agree with Glaucon that that good is not for its own sake but only for consequences.
What is Justice?
ReplyDeleteFor a long time human beings in different culture have argued “what is justice”. This subject is often heard in arguments concerning the death penalty to business transaction concerning how much you owe. One well-known argument of “what is justice”, that is portrayed in Plato’s Republic, is Glaucon’s proposal to Socrates. His proposal describes justice as not good in itself but, only for its consequences.
In the beginning of Book II Glaucon states that he is not satisfied with Socrates and Thraymachus conclusion of justice. He begins his proposal by dividing up the goods in three level s, the highest being the goods we desire for themselves and what comes from them (such as knowledge). Then he begins to argue that human beings have an inclination to commit injustice because it is pleasurable. In our minds it is naturally good to do injustice, yet our unjust actions led to others suffering which is a bad consequence. In order to keep this inclination under control human beings have created societies with just laws that limit our freedoms.
Glaucon next uses the story of the Ring of Gyges to portray a situation when our freedoms are unrestricted. In the story Gyges, a Sheppard of Lydia, found a mysterious ring worn by a skeleton in a chasm caused by an earthquake. When he goes to the palace to report to the king he realizes if he turns the ring one way he becomes invisible. As soon as he realizes this he seduces the king’s wife, kills the king, and takes over the kingdom. Glaucon then argues that if you gave a just man and an unjust man the ring they would both commit injustices. The just man would commit injustices because, like Gyges, no one can stop him from committing injustices and the temptation to commit injustices would be too great.
Glaucon is basically saying that without laws in a society humans would be inclined to commit injustices on each others. But, with just laws that prevent human beings from committing injustices our inclinations are restraint. While the laws are just they are not good because they limit our freedoms. These laws, on the other hand, prevent us from harming each other making the consequences of having these just laws “good”. For instance, an intoxicated individual wants to drive home, but his just sober friend prevents that action. The just friend, in the intoxicated individuals mind, is not good because he is preventing him from doing something he wants. Consequently the just friend prevents the intoxicated individual from harming himself, harming others, or being imprisoned. In another example; working out is not good because it causes an individual pain and takes up time. Overtime, however, the consequences of working out benefit an individual’s health.
Glaucon argues Justice is not good for its own sake, but only for its consequences. Socrates would rather say it is both good for its sake and its consequences.
ReplyDeleteAll arguments aside, Justice can be considered all three types of good. Many people would argue that humans are inherently good; individuals can act with a proper sense of Justice, even though it may not benefit them at all, just as easily as they can act unjustly. Justice is teachable to each person. It is traditionally instilled in humans as children with simple exercises of what is right and what is wrong. In this sense, Justice should be seen only as good for its own sake, regardless of the outcome and the consequences. It’s something that exists as a blanket term to cover all of the concepts mankind considers noble and right. Alternatively, Socrates is right with his assertion that Justice is both good for its own sake and its consequences. Justice exists because of a lack in humans. As trite as it sounds, no one can survive without team work; society is built off of convenience through shared work. In the City/Soul analogy, Socrates divides the human soul into three parts and argues that Justice is a harmony of all three parts of the soul. It is the cooperation of different parts that creates a solid, balanced whole. He also argues for the Sun, comparing Justice to the natural light of the world. The Sun is creation—not a sentient being but the source of life for all sentient beings. It is not static, but dynamic in its existence, leading to growth of others despite its steady, unchanging being. Without light, everything else is opinion, lies, deception—such as with the Allegory of the Cave.
Glaucon offers the explanation that Justice is only good for its consequences. Humans are naturally propelled to Injustice and only argue for Justice due to the social contract as a way of minimizing pain. Therefore, Justice is not good for its own sake; it goes against human nature. Only the consequences of Justice make it tolerable. He also argues that if an individual could erase their identity—say, with an invisible ring—that the person would almost undoubtedly behave unjustly without fear of consequence. This proves humankind’s natural inclination to Injustice. I think all of these theories have their merit and should not be favored more so than another. What I find hard to believe is that none of these thinkers have thought of Justice as situational, subjective. For each situation, it is a changing concept. I would argue that the law upholds Justice, but at the same time, there are many cases where the law is obstructing Justice and should be disregarded, such as in favor of civil disobedience. Of all the theories, I would hold Glaucon’s (although very pessimistic) to be the truest at its core, but I would also argue that on a day-to-day basis, Justice is good only for its own sake. No one wants to obey the speed limit, or pay for food at the grocery store, or stay in line at the bank. But we do for the sake of the civility of it; for the sake of its own purpose as Justice, and the right thing to do.
From our studies of justice, justice has been defined into three categories: justice for the good only of itself, good for itself and for its consequences, or not good in and of itself but only for its consequences. Justice should be good in and of itself; people should act in justice for the sake of being just, right, fair and good. As Socrates said, it is unnatural to act in injustice, because even injustice reaps consequences. If consequences did not come about after actions, there would be no reason to act and no integrity that motivates action. Consequences make actions and life have meaning. Thus, I think justice is something good for itself and for its consequences.
ReplyDeleteSocrates explains why justice is good for both itself and its consequences through an analogy of the five forms of government, beginning with Aristocracy at the top. Philosopher kings, those that rule in an aristocracy, understand the meaning of the greater good and are able to act in accordance to what will bring the greatest good because they are rooted in wisdom and reason. Socrates said, “… they should… look after themselves and the rest of the city.” This is the ideal soul, one that, as Socrates mentioned in another book of the Republic, balances intellect, appetite and desire, and as a leader, with regards to the greater good of the city. In an aristocracy, justice is good for both itself and its consequences.
The second form of government is timocracy, which is a city in which its citizen experiences a shift from valuing the good to valuing the seeming good. Glaucon said acting to seem good is all that matters because no one will really know if one is acting justly and a person will be mistreated by society if he/she does not seem just. Socrates said this type of soul is a “proud and honor-loving man,” because this soul sees that seeming just feeds the spirit and appetite. But this person lacks depth and understanding of the purpose of good actions and humility in doing what is right. The third form of government Socrates relates to the soul is an oligarchy, a political rule by the one who owns the most. In an oligarchy, having wealth and those who are wealthy are valued or honored, and virtue, integrity and acting just is value less. Thus, Socrates said, “victory-loving and honor-loving men become lovers of making money, or money-lovers. And they praise and admire wealthy people and appoint them as rulers, and they dishonor poor ones.” In effect, they will make laws that reflect what those in power honor and virtue will be disregarded. These two types of government reflect acting in justice only for its consequences, the wealth and honor it brings to the individual acting justly.
In the fourth form and fifth types of government reflect acting in justice for its own sake and not for its consequences. In the fourth, democracy, everything in a city is equal. Socrates said this form of government leads the city to throw out virtue completely. Because, if people are valued for their differences, each his own will value what he or she individually wishes. Laws will reflect a system that enables each individual to act for his/her own, not for the consequences it will have in the city. For Plato, democracy breeds the fifth form of government that reflects a soul – tyranny. The problem with tyranny is that any one person who is appointed as ruler will do in his own best interest and try to enforce his interests on the rest of the city, acting out of a personal idea of justice for its own sake and not for the consequences it presents to the city for those who disagree.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Glaucon, man’s nature is to be unjust. That justice is only good for its consequences. I agree with Glaucon because of his use of the social contract, and that there is a compromise between the best and worst. We make compromises in society to maintain an order because if no order of justice is maintained, conflicting interests would tear everyone apart. Justice is worth the trouble according to Glaucon and that while justice is better for the majority, the main reason we follow it is for our personal gain and happiness. He also states that because of a lack of power to do injustice, justice is honored. We fear the consequences of doing injustices. We know that to enjoy life and to be happy, we have to follow the rules.
ReplyDeleteHis best evidence for this was in his story of the Ring of Gyges. The ring gives man the power to be invisible. Glaucon questions that if we were freed from all consequences of injustice, would we use this justly or use it to our personal advantage and do things we would never do otherwise. I agree with Glaucon that nobody would act just. No longer would we have the fear of being caught and because we are invisible, we would never face the consequences of our actions. I think that Thraysmachus, however, does not give man enough credit in his/her ability to act justly. His version of justice is based on “might is right.” I also believe that Socrates’ belief that no one willing errs is disproved by the “Ring of Gyges.” It shows that we need no justification to do injustices; we just tend not to do them because we are bound by the consequences of doing such injustices.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSocrates' Continuum of Justice
ReplyDeleteWhile it may seem far-fetched, I believe that Socrates' ingenious use of the number “3” throughout Plato's Republic has a great deal to do with the way we psychologically interpret his philosophy, even to the point where it appears as if the great thinker is coaxing us to take the bait of debate over concepts that he consistently asks us to consider through three, commonly uncooperative points of view. Also, he tends to find interesting ways to add emphasis to this numerology in illustrations such as the “Tripartite Division of the Soul,” even with this example forcing the reader to divide a normally unified idea (the soul) into three distinct ideas: intellect, spirit, and appetite. Other such examples include the “3 Waves of Paradox,” his definition of three kinds of “makers,” as well as the fact that he debates his ideas in the story with three characters: Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, and Glaucon. However, the most meaningful, and perhaps manipulative, use of “3” occurs in his debates over justice, or rather, the nature of justice.
Primarily, three views of justice are made available to us through Socrates' debates over it with Glaucon: (1) that justice is good only for itself, (2) that justice is good for itself and for its consequences, and (3) that justice is not good for itself but only for its consequences. Socrates and Glaucon approach it with an “either/or” perspective, and this allows for Socrates to play devil's advocate while Glaucon attempts to grasp the “correct” point of view, and for the reader to gain understanding of all approaches. However, I believe that by presenting us with three (and ONLY three) perspectives, Socrates puts us in a psychological position to choose one superior option over the two inferior ones, and thus jeopardizes an objective point of view on the debate. Psychologist Dan Ariely affirms this assumption in his book Predictably Irrational, where he conducted several studies showing a clear correlation, known as the “decoy effect,” between unreasonable decisions and three given options (1-14). In fact, I argue that Socrates nudges us in a subjective direction to obviate the irony involved in positing one view above the two others in regards to justice. For instance, at the conclusion of Book 10, Socrates concludes that justice is good only for its consequences, because its only consequence is inevitably a good life. He chooses the point of view that, upon closer inspection, provides the “tripartite” division of the debate that fuels its innate paradox: that justice is both exclusively good for for its consequences as well as for itself.
While this may seem like a strange conclusion, I believe that justice in practice is a socially applied concept, and is thus relative to the two or more people involved in the situation that evokes it. However, that being established, it has to be held and practiced with the mutual consent of those involved that it is for their own “good,” or else, why would they participate in its practice? So, the fact that we consider justice as being good solely for its subjective consequences literally reveals that its primary consequence is a reliance on its objective principle in order for it to benefit us all. Not only does his use of “3” in Plato's Republic seem to make all his described perspectives more understandable, but with such debates as the one held over justice, it also seems to befuddle the reader and forces them to realize that justice, rather than being a static concept, is a dynamic and ever-changing continuum between its subjective practice and that practice's reliance on its absoluteness.
I take the side of Glaucon in believing that justice is not a good in itself but only for its consequences. Glaucon makes a good argument by explaining the Social Contract Theory. The Social Contract Theory suggests that humans by nature are injustice and like to do things for ourselves and for our self interests. The theory explains that humans find a way to minimize suffering such as someone stealing a possession of another person by creating this social contract between others to benefit ourselves. For example, a rebellion starts because a tyrant is running the government and does not care for the social contract or its politics and refuses to compromise. The rebellion is fueled by resentment towards that tyrant for not following the social contract. In order to minimize rebels’ pain, they must overthrow that government and create a new one that obeys that contract.
ReplyDeleteEven though Socrates argues that those who practice injustice do it unwillingly, Glaucon supports his argument of the Social Contract Theory by telling a myth called the Ring of Gyges. The story is about a shepherd who finds a ring on a dead man and discovers that the ring can turn him invisible. He decides to use the invisibility to kill the king, seduce the queen and take the throne. The story shows how willing humans are to take advantage of breaking the social contract to benefit themselves but are also willing to enter that contract to protect themselves.
I would like to believe that justice is a good in itself and for its consequence. For instance, I believe that entering a marriage is not because we do not trust our spouse but because we love and see something in them that we do not see in ourselves. However, without a “social contract” many humans will take advantage of others to profit themselves.
Plato’s Republic sets out to define what justice is. Different people in the book argue that justice is something good only for itself while others argue that justice is not good in itself but only for its consequences and others argue that justice is good for itself and for its consequences. I agree with Socrates that justice is good for itself and also good for its consequences.
ReplyDeleteTo defend his position, Socrates uses an analogy between a city and an individual. In the city there are three classifications of people: rulers, soldiers and producers. There is justice in the city when each group of people does what their job is. So there is justice in the city when the ruler creates just laws and then the soldiers enforce the laws of the ruler and the producers obey authority. When we compare the city to an individual then there is justice in an individual when all of his or her faculties do their job. Socrates states that for there to be justice, “everyone must practice one of the occupations in the city for which he is naturally suited.” In the individual when each part of the body does what it is suppose to do and does not try to do the job of another part then there is justice and the individual can be consider a just person.
I believe that justice in this sense is good of itself and for its consequences. It is good in itself because when everyone does what they are naturally suited best for then they are first of all successful and second of all happy because they are doing what they are best suited to do. Justice is also good because of its consequences because when everyone is doing what they are best at then the whole city benefits. Socrates says that one of the results of justice is that it sustains and amplifies the virtues of wisdom, moderation and courage. When all of the other virtues (wisdom moderation and courage) act in harmony with each other then justice ensues. Justice is therefore good in itself and good because of its consequences.
Famous psychologist like Carl Rogers argued that for the most part humans generally are good people. We can take from that that people have a sense of justice. I consider myself a good person; I do good things because it is right. When I stop at a red light I do not only do it so I am not punished but because I do not want to hurt anybody else, which is the right thing to do. Justice is naturally good, however it is a human’s responsibility to reason and put it into action.
ReplyDeleteThe most relatable and simplest analogy to compare this to is Socrates’ Sun Analogy. The sun is a physical object that we can see, in which it helps us see. It shines light on everything, which gives us knowledge. The sun changes the seasons and helps crops grow. The sun does not expect anything back it is just there to provide for humans.
My favorite analogy Socrates presents is the Tripartite Division of the Soul. Once our mind, soul, and appetite are all in harmony we can all mind our own. I could not agree with Socrates more in this harmonious sense of justice. Like the city, if every citizen does his job, and does his job well, justice is equal. By doing what is best for us, as well as living simply we do not interfere or cause harm in someone else’s life.
We can take for instance a modern example of legalizing gay marriage. One should not let one’s beliefs interfere with another’s life. Anti-gay marriage groups look for the outcomes of laws to up hold their beliefs and in most cases just fight the cause for the consequence, which is our second proposition of the good (in and of itself and for the consequences). This is not justified. Anything that is just done for the profit is inherently corrupt.
Plato presents us with the ideals that we as individuals deserve justice but we must equally present it. By following the social contract we can be the best people we know how to be. It is simply about respect and letting “it” be.
Plato provides theories of justice from Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Socrates. I’m going to focus on Socrates because I agree with his theory of justice. Socrates argues that justice is good in itself and for its consequences. For instance, going to school and getting an education is good because a person learns knowledge and this knowledge will help that person understand how things work in life. Education is a convention of society and we know “Good” by convention according to Socrates. In society, it is required that a person get an education up to a certain point in order to function as a member. The consequence of getting an education is being a functional member that can contribute to the whole and realizing this intelligibility of the actual good.
ReplyDeleteSocrates defines the good as the offspring of the good. The offspring of the good provides understanding. Socrates compares the good to the sun. The good is a source of knowledge, truth, and beauty and the sun is the source of all the good in the world. The sun provides light and sight for the visible world, while the good responsible for our knowledge and understanding. The sun allows things like plants to grow and the good allows knowledge to grow. In this analogy, the sun is both good in itself by providing light and warmth, as well as for its consequences, because it allows life to form.
Another analogy of Socrates that illustrates his theory is the myth of Er, which focuses on the period between death and rebirth. Er is a warrior that was killed but doesn’t actually die. He is sent to heaven and hell to examine everything that happens there and later to give a description of the afterlife to the people on earth. He observes the system of heaven and hell, which a person is rewarded and punished for a long period of time, and is then asked to choose his next life. He can choose to be an animal or human being and this choice is heavily weighed, either rewarded or punished in next life. The testimony of the afterlife is supposed to inform people of the consequences of being just and unjust, and its long term effects or moral and immoral behavior on the soul and it importance of virtue. Because the individual chose to seek good for itself by selecting to live as a tyrant in his next life, Socrates demonstrates that justice must be good in itself and for its consequences.
Michael Guiden
ReplyDeleteJustice, as described variously by Plato in the Republic, is good for itself and for its consequences. Plato through Socrates rejects the notion that justice is nothing more than telling the truth and giving back what one acquires or takes from another. Justice does require that one do these things, but this is a limited interpretation of its meaning. Plato also rejects the idea that justice consists of doing good to friends and rendering harm to enemies. His position is that justice is intimately related to the constitution of the ideal state. It is the state which Plato positioned as an indispensable means for the attainment of virtue and higher human happiness. Both as a good in itself (an end) and in terms of consequences (as a means to ends), Plato valued justice.
Justice in this construction revolves around a not necessarily egalitarian framework simply because Plato recognized that in his ideal state, there are many classes of individuals for whom different roles are logical and necessary. These roles are not equal and the idealized philosopher king and the guardians of the ideal state are possessed of greater status and influence than ordinary workers. Plato also conceives of justice as that which is in the interest of the best state which ensures that a class division will exist and be maintained. What Plato does in Republic is to set out to demonstrate that it pays a man to be just which is interpreted as obeying the laws of the state. This formulation is based on Socrates’ Tripartite Division of the Soul in which the soul consists of three parts and of which the relations of super- and subordination are themselves determined by nature. The reasonable part rules the other parts of the soul, which Socrates calls justice in the soul, contending that it is right because it is the one which accords with man’s nature.
Socrates held that there is a connection between the preservation of the order of the state and the preservation of the order of the soul. Obedience to the laws of the good state has the effect of producing the right order in the soul of the citizen. What makes an act just in Plato’s philosophy is not only its conformity to the interest of the state, but conformity to nature. Justice is a social virtue that allows one to act well toward others. From justice in the state to justice in the life of the individual in his soul, Plato argues that people are better off when they are just than when they are unjust.
The thoroughly just person as envisioned by Socrates and Plato leads the happiest of lives and it is the philosopher who is the best judge of which kind of life is most pleasant. He felt that we can only be fully virtuous when we use wisdom (reason) to control our spirit (to make it more courageous instead of rash or timid or foolhardy), and to control our appetite.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSocrates is correct when he asserts justice is good in itself and for its consequences in Plato’s the Republic. Socrates clearly shows this through his arguments of the forms of Government corresponding to types of souls and the Myth of Er. The forms of government which correspond to types of souls defend the understanding of justice as good in itself. The Myth of Er helps Socrates prove that justice is also good for its consequences.
ReplyDeleteSocrates states that there are five dominant types of individuals just as there are five dominant types of constitutions or types of government. He asserts that the best of these governments is an aristocracy because it is good in itself. The aristocracy symbolizes a person whose tripartite division of intellect, appetite, and spirit are in harmony within the soul. Socrates believes this individual is the happiest individual as an aristocracy with these three parts in harmony is the best. This soul is just and good in itself proving justice is good in itself.
After aristocracy, Socrates describes how each following government is less harmonious in relation to how it relates the good. The next government for Socrates is a timocracy. The timocracy switches the good itself into seeming good. This seeming good comes from the drive to attract a good name and honor. This happens to an individual when they leave reasoning and turn more towards their spirited faction. After timocracy, an oligarchy is the next government because honor for a good name turns into honor for wealth. An oligarchy soul would be an individual whose appetite faction rules.
The fourth government is the democracy where all good is relative. This relativity comes from the belief that all is equal. When everything is equal nothing is better or worse and therefore the absolute good does not exist. An individual with no good is the most unhappy and inharmonious soul. Therefore it is better to be a just man as justice is good in itself. The last government Socrates describes is the tyranny where one individual’s good is imposed on all. This represents how an individual can assert one desire on their whole soul. When justice is good in itself as within aristocratic soul, the individual is most harmonious. As good is depleted through an unhealthy harmony of the spirit, appetite, and intellect the individual worsens.
As the types of governments clearly show that justice is good in itself, the Myth of Er proves justice is also good for its consequences. The Myth of Er states that the soul is immortal. This immortality gives purpose for the good done by an individual throughout their life. The choices an individual makes now affects how they will choose their future life. One must be a good and just man by conscious thought to choose their next life wisely. Without this pure justice a person will have negative consequences. Through his arguments of the types of governments and Myth of Er, Socrates proves that justice is good in itself and for its consequences.
I believe that the principal of justice is good in of itself. Justice leads to positive consequences. The idea of justice being good in of itself is based the premise of being noble, right and fair. The consequences of justice are good because it keeps people from breaking the rules of society which would lead to total anarchy. Justice is something that is good and desirable. Any person or society should desire justice. Justice permits individuals and society as a whole to be in more perfect harmony with the surrounding environment. When people do not steal, cheat or lie in the community, the people are being just and fair. This act of justice and fairness shows that the community has a sense of ethics. It is in the overall interests of the people to be fair to one another. If people are not fair, the community breaks down and it becomes unpleasant to live together. To help prove my point, I will use Socrates’ idea of specialization, the Myth of Er and the analogy of the sun. In specialization, each member of society must play the role for which his nature best suits him. The shoemaker must only make shoes and the farmer must only farm. This allows the workers to do the best job they can do. The warriors of society must defend society and enforce the laws. The philosophers must rule. These three classes make a just city. Having every citizen of society specializing in something allows each person to have contributing role in that society. This makes for a content group of individuals. Each member of the community must be fair to each other. Unfairness causes the whole system to fall apart. The Myth of Er also helps prove that justice is good in of itself and has positive consequences. Er goes to heaven and sees how being just in life is rewarded in the afterlife. When Er goes to heaven, he witnesses people’s souls choosing what life they want to live in their next life. Er sees that the souls who were just in their last life come to understand how to choose the just life. The non-just soul does not know how to pick their next life and it is just luck if their next life is good. Socrates’ analogy of the sun also helps prove my point. The sun is not only good for the light it provides but it is also good because it allows plants to grow. The light of the sun allows one to see the beauty and the truth of all forms on earth. Because of these three defenses that Socrates gives in the Republic, it allows me to believe that justice is good in of itself and has positive consequences.
ReplyDeleteSocrates, in Plato’s Republic, argues that justice is for it’s own sake and for it’s consequences. I agree with Socrates’ idea of justice because I do not believe that justice is only good for itself, but is also good for the consequences that accompany it. Without consequences for justice there would be neither good nor bad results from the action. Without justice for the sake of justice there may be potentially negative or harmful results in the future with no cyclical way for them to come about or develop. Socrates best expresses his idea of justice and good through his tripartite theory of soul argument. Socrates argues that the soul is composed of three parts, the appetitive, the intellect, and the spirited. Through these three components of the soul, Socrates emphasizes once again the need for balance in order to maintain and establish harmony within society. Socrates does this by demonstrating the problems that accompany anyone who allows one of the components to dominate over the other two, creating an unbalanced person. The unbalanced person who allows the intellect to dominate has intelligibility with no means to accomplish their vision because they have no desire to fulfill it or restrict their desires to such an extent that restrains desires altogether. The unbalanced person who allows appetite to dominate his desires, whether necessary or unnecessary, has no filter or restriction on the excessiveness of the desires he wishes to fulfill or foresight for the consequences that could accompany them. I believe that Socrates was correct with his argument and that balance and harmony are what make up the Good. Disharmony in society creates a whole world of problems and opposes unity thus creating a dysfunctional society. If a society were to have a dominate component of the soul there would be no unity among the members of society, causing problems within it. There must be good in itself and also good for it’s consequences in order to maintain balance and harmony in society. Although it is difficult to remain balanced on an individual level because we as humans are imperfect, one should strive to maintain a balance within ones self. Because not everyone in a society is completely balanced within themselves, the people that make up this society must be balanced as a whole, with those who are dominated by the intellect and those dominated by appetite equating one another and creating harmony within a society. It is easy for me to believe this to be true, because I also strive to live life justly through the means of balance and denying dominate or excessive forces to disrupt harmony. I believe, like Socrates, that humanity can only survive and flourish through balance and harmony and that these important virtues make up justice and the Good.
ReplyDeleteIn Glaucon’s definition of justice, justice is not for its own sake but only for its consequences. He goes on to describe justice as a social contract between all men, assuming all men are essentially of equal power. Glaucon believes that the negative consequences of committing injustice are far greater than the benefits of committing an injustice against another man. Therefore, if all people are basically utilitarian in nature, they will choose to act justly solely based on the consequences.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Glaucon discusses the Ring of Gyges to prove his social contract theory of justice. Glaucon suggests that if two rings of invisibility existed and one was given to a just man and the other was given to an unjust man, they would act the exact same after being given power. This is how the social contract comes into play because the general public must understand that those in power will act unjustly because they can. Without the fear of consequences of your actions, all men would act unjustly. However, if no man is given such power over others, then men would chose to act justly because they would be held accountable for their actions and face the consequences.
Glaucon’s theory is applicable to the current era in more ways than one might think. Take for example state Senators. They have been given power over the general public in their state; however, the people of the state have no way of knowing how their Senator will actually vote when he walks around Capitol Hill. As is often the case, the Senators act out of their own interest instead of the interest of the people thus using their power to do unjust things. In Louisiana, Senators are constantly using insider information to buy good fertile land near where a levee is soon to be built. When the levee is built the price of the land skyrockets but the Senators and their families have already purchased the land cheaply. For this reason and many others I believe that Glaucon is right: justice is only about the consequences. If we were all granted the power of invisibility, wouldn’t we act unjustly as well? I believe we would.
In the Republic, justice is the main focus of the text. Plato took his reader on a journey through different aspects of what justice is and how it could be applied to life. Socrates, one of the main characters, argued that justice is good for its own sake and for its consequences. In Book X, Socrates introduced the myth of Er in his defense to further explain why it is better for a person to live a just life than for a person to live unjustly.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the myth, a man named Er dies in a battle, but does not really die. He is sent to the afterlife with others where there is a choice of either going through the doors of the sky or the doors of the earth. The judges that sat between these openings told the souls which path to take. The good(just) went in the sky and the immoral(unjust) went in the earth. To make a long story short, when the souls reached the spindle of Necessity, they were given a lottery to choose their next life. The just souls usually chose unjust lives, where as, the unjust souls chose just lives. The souls then drank from the River of Forgetfulness and became what they were destined to be. Er woke up on the funeral pyre not being able to recall his journey through the afterlife.
Socrates drew the distinction between Heaven and Hell to show how justice was good for itself and for its consequences. Justice was good in and of itself because it made people live a certain way. The just people abided by the rules the city set in place and treated others fairly. They did not live life breaking laws and doing as they pleased. As a result, justice’s consequences were also good because it allowed them to enter the gates of Heaven, instead of the gates of Hell, as the unjust did. In showing how just people were rewarded in the afterlife, Socrates’ argument about being just in both lives far outweighed those of injustices. Justice is good for its own sake and for its consequences.
In the Republic Socrates is trying to explain the nature of Justice and determine what is good. Socrates determines that the nature of Justice can be found in the human soul and the social structure of the city (society). Glaucon, Plato’s brother, participates in the debate in hopes of finding the actual meaning of justice and what constitutes as good. Glaucon ask Socrates if justice belongs in one of the three categories. First is that Justice is the kind of good we welcome because we receive harmless pleasure from it. Second is that justice is a good that we like for our own sake, and we like what comes from the good. The third good justice belongs to is that we value the consequences of the good but we don’t necessarily enjoy it. Socrates believed in the first category because when it comes to good things we choose pleasure. Glaucon kind of plays the devil’s advocate because he says justice is not valued for itself but for its consequences, this is because justice is difficult and most people try to avoid it. For example; men made laws to obey by so that unjust things wouldn’t happen in society. These laws are made because our human nature drives us to be unjust because it is more rewarding. Glaucon becomes a little contradictory in his story of the Gyges Ring. The story tells of a shepherd that discovers an invisible ring. The shepherd uses the ring to do unjust things in society. Glaucon discuses this story because it proves, if you were to give any member of society this ring, even the most “just” person, they would still commit unjust acts in society. It is in our human nature and the invisibility allows us to act as our true selves.
ReplyDeleteIn Plato’s Republic, Glaucon sets up the argument that justice can be divided into three classes: justice is good only in its consequences, justice is good only in itself, and justice is good in itself and its consequences. Socrates makes the argument that justice is good both in itself and its consequences, which he displays through the Tripartite Theory of the Soul. Socrates claims that there is three parts to the soul: Intellect, Spirit, and Appetite. The Intellect part of the soul desires truth and knowledge, the Spirit part desires honor, and the Appetite part desires material things such as food or money. These parts of the soul correspond to the three parts of society, with the Intellect part representing rulers, the Spirit part representing auxiliaries, and the Appetite part representing the working class. The soul functions as a city would as well. The Intellect portion of the soul controls the Appetite with aid of the Spirited portion, just as the ruler controls the working class with aid of the auxiliaries. The city/ soul’s parts should perform their own functions in order to create harmony and allow for the common good. This harmony proves for a healthy soul. Since health is something that is desired and because this harmony allows for justice, justice is therefore desired as well. Through this theory, Socrates defends the argument that justice is good both in itself and in its consequences. The intellect part of the soul helps control impulses and strives for knowledge. The ability to obtain knowledge and logic allows for justice and proves that justice is good in itself because it is already in place in our souls. I believe that human nature is ultimately good. Humans are born with certain morals and logic that causes one to strive for justice. We use our intellect to decide what is good not only for ourselves, but for our society too. Justice is good in it’s consequences because, when applied, it will allow for a functional and just society. A functional society that is in harmony will allow for good things to come such as human rights and new technologies, yet a functional individual who’s harmonious within himself allows for this society to be functional.
ReplyDeleten society, we have created amongst ourselves both a written social contract, as well as an unwritten social contract of how one should behave. These contracts say that a person will abide by these rules and suffer the consequences if the contract is broken. So the question is, do people abide by these rules because it is the right thing to do or because they are afraid of the consequences? When no one is watching, people are capable of doing anything if they know they can get away with it.
ReplyDeletePeople will do shocking things when they know no one is watching and consequence is not on their hands. Psychological test have shown that a person will do something they know is wrong if the consequences are not on their hands, like shocking test in which a person was told to shock someone with electric volts every time they got a question wrong, and up the voltage each time. No matter how uncomfortable these people got, they still continued to do something wrong because the responsibility was not theirs. While arguing his view of justice with Socrates, Glaucon tells the story of the Ring of Gyges, in which a man finds a ring which allows to become invisible whenever he wishes, and uses that power to seduce the queen, kill the king, and become the king himself. Glaucon argues that without the shield of invisibility, Gyges would have never committed these crimes, but because he knew he would get away with it and not suffer the consequences, he did. People will do things they would not normally do if they knew no consequence followed, like dancing in one's room. Most people will begin to dance and sing as crazy as they want if they know no one will come in the room and see them. If they know someone could possibly look in and see, more than likely they will not do it out of fear of suffering embarrassment.
People will do things they do not believe they are capable of if no one is watching, the responsibility of their actions places no consequences on them, and if one knows they can get away with all consequences. Because people are afraid of the consequences, they abide by these social contracts, in which society has made, in order to not be punished. If these rules and consequences did not exist, who knows what people could be capable of.
To understand how Socrates answers the question of "what is justice” it is critical to comprehend Socrates' definition of justice, and how he came to define it as such. Socrates emphasizes the analogy of a city to portray justice in the individual. Initially, this city is small and moderate. As the city expands and it becomes more luxurious, more internal discipline is necessary to shield the property rights of individuals. In addition to an army both to shelter the city from wary neighbors and to acquire the needed resources for the city’s progression. In a large city such as this one, co-operation amongst its citizens is vital for the city to function accordingly; the population must work n “harmony”. Socrates provides that’s categories of class were thus invented for this purpose. The lower class serves for labor, and the middle class comprises the militia, who in turn serve the noble rulers. These classes are sketched out based on the kind of metal a person encompasses in their soul. Socrates makes the comparison between the city and a painting. Thus it is more productive for each component of the city to work for the advancement of the city as a whole rather than each person work well alone.
ReplyDeleteSocrates continues on to make parallel comparisons: the lower class to the appetites, the middle class to the will, and the upper class to a person’s reason. Reason determines the conclusions. Whereas appetites that lack reason often have appetites that yearn for things that are absent of any kind of benefit. At which point the “will” overthrow the authority of reason and its regulations imposed.
Socrates’ view of justice is connected to harmony, therefore proposing that the consequence of justice is justice itself, capturing the claim that justice is good in itself, for its own sake. He also holds the argument of “the way things should be." Socrates is repeatedly strengthening the concept there are particular terms of "the way things should be." Plato regards to this as "Forms." The cardinal type of all Forms is Truth, which is represented by the Sun. In this specific metaverse, there is order. All parts are crucial for the existence of a functional whole; everything must know its place and role, and its inherent codependence on other things. Plato employs these Forms to demonstrate that there is an absolute reality beyond perception. In accordance to Plato’s presentation of the “Forms”, Socrates responds with the claim that there is a particular way in which things should work. By acting justly (Socratically speaking), people satisfy their purpose, because according to Socrates the aim of any system is to act in harmony with the rest of the universe, which would account for justice being good for its own sake.
I would have to agree that justice is good in itself and for its consequences. I will attempt to support my opinion by putting forth the following example: There was this one time I was washing someone’s car for a $50 dollar reward, at this time I was in middle school and I needed some money to buy some tickets to an event. When I was done and I went to retrieve the money I earned from my “client”, he accidently gave me a twenty and four 10 dollar bills stuck to rather than three. I did not realize this until after I had already made it home. By that time it was dark outside so I figured I would wait until the next day to go back to his house and return the extra t that were stuck to dollar bill. The next day when I passed by his house, his car wasn’t in his driveway, so I slid the ten dollar bill under his door attached to a note hoping he would get it. I didn’t hear back from him for over a week, I assumed he just saw it and didn’t say anything. I didn’t call to check because I didn’t want to make it seem like I gave it back for some type of recognition. Yet strangely enough, a week later, he came by y house, and asked my mom if he could give me something. I came to the door and in an envelope he had two tickets to the concert event along with a gift certificate for a restaurant. I was so happy and excited, when I asked him why he was giving me such a gift, he responded, “I came back from a business trip, and saw $10.00 on my floor and I assumed I must have dropped them, but then recently to my surprise under one of my chairs I found the little note that you wrote, it must have found its way there somehow. I really appreciated you honesty and loyalty, so I decided to take the initiative to buy you these tickets. You deserve it.” I remember running and giving him a hug. I was so grateful for his gift.
ReplyDeleteThinking back now, I was a little disappointed when I didn’t hear back from him; a small part of me wanted a thank you. However, it didn’t change my mind about acting justly; I didn’t regret giving him his money back, even though I received no response. I felt a large amount of pleasure after acting justly, pleasure for justice's sake itself. I cannot completely say that the pleasure that I felt from acting justly was solely because of the consequences, although it did help, I found this pleasure derived from simply from the respect I had for him and he fact that it was the honorable thing to do, regardless of whether or not he appreciated it. As a matter of fact the man was unaware that I had been the one to return his money initially, therefore, he felt no gratitude toward me for having treated him justly. Nor can I say I acted justly out of fear or weakness, because I knew he probably wouldn’t even notice, considering he was pretty wealthy. I personally gained pleasure from acting justly in spite of how I may have given up tangible goods and without any gain of intangible goods such as gratitude, at least not right away. This is a pleasure that is felt Socrates referred to as the highest class of pleasures, pleasures of the soul.
Mary Mena
In the Republic, Socrates embarks on this journey to discover the true meaning of justice and the good. He encounters many people along the way and asks them to express their beliefs on justice and the good. One of the many people Socrates questioned was Polemarchus. Polemarchus inherited his fathers discuss with Socrates about justice. Polemarchus, expressed that justice was giving “each his due.” He supported his premise with the same example Socrates gave about, whether one should give back a weapon to an insane person. Polemarchus stated that the weapon should be given back to the rightful owner. (even if it was the insane person) Socrates then refutes him by saying that giving “each his due” could mean something entirely different from what he believed. It could be helping your friends and harming your enemies, but at the same time harming enemies is not just at all.
ReplyDeleteIn a way I agree and disagree with Polemarchus’ theory, it very ambiguous. Of course, its evident that if an adult is witnessing a child steal a piece of candy from another child, more then likely, the adult would do the right thing and give back the candy to its rightful owner. However, what if there wasn’t an adult present? How would the child receive his “due?” Socrates questioned, How do we know what is “due?” Who’s responsible for making sure that everyone is receiving their “due?” This also bring to mind human trafficking, children dying of hunger and so on and so forth. When is their “due” coming?
In my opinion, of course I would be happy to know that someone out there was keeping tally marks of all the unjust acts I have been faced with and is waiting to give me my “due.” But as we know, life really doesn’t work that way there are just and unjust situations and sometimes that “due” never comes. As for me I believe, that justice is something good in itself and its consequences. As Socrates, shows in his analogy of the sun that light and nature of the good is needed in order to flourish and keep order. As long as there is justice or “due” one can reap the consequences, but at the same time there must be justice in order for the concept to work.
One of the Republic’s best analogies for the good was the 5 types of City Souls. In this society, your class is determined by your character rather than to whom you were born. This analogy represents different types of people and their characters. Justice, ultimately, is for the good of it because it is not a waste and leads to the best overall.
ReplyDeleteThe top level of society represents the best men and women of society and those who are just. Each level down are less good and just. The top level of society is the aristocracy, who are the best and most just people of the city. The artistocracy have harmonious souls, meaning that their reason and bodies are synchronized to mutual temperance and habits. The second level of society is the timocracy, who seem to be good. However, the timocracy have lower honor. The timocracy is more concerned about their image than the actual good, or they have to compromise between intellect and appetite. The third level is an oligarchy. The oligarchy strive to gain goods, and with the more goods you have determines your power amongst the oligarchy. The fourth level of society is the democracy. The democracy is honor versus wealth, leading to strife and revolution. The way truth is determined in a democratic society is through integrity. The fifth and final level is tyranny, where chaos and lack of reason reign.
For Socrates, justice had to be in harmony with one’s soul. Socrates also believes that justice is a good for it’s own sake. Justice is created out of a social contract, a compromise between the best and worst of a society. This contract limits individuals from doing as they please with no regards for anyone else. By nature humans don’t trust one another, so the making of this contract is a minimizing of pain. In a sense, this contract takes away the power to do injustice from those who would seek to dominate others. The weak must first come together in order to exert this justice on the stronger.
ReplyDeleteThose who would practice injustice do so unwillingly. Socrates states that the nature of man is not about doing whatever one pleases but cooperating with others in a society to achieve a common good and minimize pain. Man is naturally needy and cannot survive alone. The city is ruled by philosopher kings who have studied the good in and of itself. Men whose only job is to protect the city are the Guardians. They must possess a balance between the intellectual and spiritual parts of their souls, achieved by putting education of the good itself first and foremost.
In understanding the education of the soul, Socrates presents the Divided Line analogy. In the beginning, our knowledge of things is only opinion. But as we experience the visible world we come a belief that these objects do, in fact, exist. Through taking small steps in determining the intelligibility of things, we slowly gain an understanding of a particular thing. Finally we reach the truth of our reality by understanding ideas about ideas.
Socrates divides the soul into the intellectual, spiritual, and appetive. He also describes the Three Waves of Paradox in his ideal city. Women are equal to men. Cohabitation is necessary for a society to function. We also see an early form of eugenics; bad thoughts were to be forgotten and thoughts that are beneficial to the soul were nurtured.