Plato on Justice Essay

Platos interpretation of judge as seen in ? The Republic is a vastly severaliseive one when comp bed to what we and even the philosophers of his own sequence argon accustomed to. Plato would say sole(prenominal) ifice is the act of carrying out ones duties as he is fitted with. Moreover, if ones duties require one to lie or commit some amour else that is not traditionally viewed along with judge that too is counted still by Platos key outs in ? The Republic. I remember Platos account of unspoiltice, and his plausibly confession against objections ar both clear and logical, thusly I forget endeavor to moot his views as best as I can.Platos view of arbiter ties in with his view of a perfect world. In Platos ideal world, the familiarity would be a wise one, wise in understanding that their own po stickion in society is just. This society in turn, moldiness carry out their duties fitted to them by their position. unfortunately the real world does not dish in that m anner, Plato understanding that ? fault with society tells us that if the society is lacking wisdom, the to the highest degree wise ones would be philosophers, (473d) and society should consider them to be the authority.Plato desires that being just is so intrinsicly important that everyone is better finish up being just than unjust, no case the situation. Plato in 360e-362d uses Glaucon to mystify this point, Glaucon asks who is better false? The just or the unjust, given the exposit that the unjust man is rich, famous, see, and federal agencyful and that the just man is poor, defamed, and lives a life of suffering. Platos only real way to resolving power this is to prove that umpire is innately favourable and that injustice is innately evil merely prove the poor, defamed man happy and the rich, respected unjust man unhappy.Plato goes about this by explaining what justice is justice has to do with doing what is right, and in that location exists some specific virtue in everything, which enables it to work well. If it is deprived of that nature, in contrast it would suffer. It is much the said(prenominal) with the mind, the soul moldiness also perform its specific virtue. The to a greater extent virtuous, or ? just a soul is, the happier the soul is. The happier the soul is, the happier the person is. in that respectof a just man lives blithely and well, whereas an unjust man would not.This line follows the a=b b=c wherefore a=c argument form. an new(prenominal)(prenominal) objection, brought about by a subject and different theory of Justice is brought up by Plato in a conversation between Socrates and Thrasymachus. In this argument Thrasymachus defines justice as in the interest of the stronger. This fundamentally means that justice belongs in the pass on of the rulers, and that the rulers are whoever is stronger, in that locationfore getting to a ruling position. Laws are then made, found on the ruling partys interest, and only the irs.Those who violate such created constabularys, will get punished for breaking the law and so on and so forth. Socrates entirely disagrees with this theory of justice and gives the analogy of a physician who is studying and exercising his power is in fact doing so in the interest of his patients, not himself. In the same manner, the government will do what is in the interest of the people, and not of itself. Some unreciprocated objections that may come up against Platos idea of justice may shoot for the part where he believes that philosophers are the only qualified individuals to run his ideal society.Plato believes that philosophers mother knowledge, I pose a scenario where there are no much philosophers, maybe because of a philosopher massacre, or one where there is simply nobody wise enough. one can easily make the argument that since philosophy is dealing with the same questions for the previous(prenominal) 2500 years, that we are actually not wise, and in fact quite the opposite. I believe that for the most part, Plato has a successful account of justice. Platos criticism of then familiarize theories of justice and his defense against the xxxxxx theories make hotshot logically.Furthermore, Plato was ages ahead of his clock by inclination for equal rights among men and woman when concerning the guardians, contrasted Aristotle who got almost everything wrong and most likely set philosophy and other sciences plunk for centuries, I believe Plato was ages ahead of his time in understand that men and women are equal in at least the ? capacity to understand reality and make reasonable judgments about it. (454d) However just that fact does not lead to a proper defense against arguments.One thing a reader may view as a problem is that Plato seems to be present a little Heidegger by alluding to a dictatorship which are ruled by the wise, namely, philosophers. Even if such a Nazi and Communist-esque dictatorship were to be implemented, I busin ess organization it would hit the same brick wall that other dictatorships face, the people will not sit idly by while they are told what to do. I believe that leads to a large problem. Plato seemingly wants to hint more and more at an innate knowledge which includes justice, or if the person does not wipe out this innate knowledge he can be taught in society knowledge and the just thing to do.I believe this poses a problem for Plato, if society innately knows the define thing to do, but does not do it, then this is contradictory with the definition of justice Plato wants for us. And if there is one thing philosophers have insisted upon over time is that there are no contradictions. In its defense I do not know of any philosophical questions that have a pick out answer, otherwise there would be no more philosophy. Even with the possible shortcomings, Plato argues his justice logically, and uses Glaucon and Adeimentus well, to show the strengths of his arguments.