Plato vs Aristotle: Justice Plato and Aristotle are two of the most remembered philosophers of all time. Being master and student, the two have had interesting propinquity yet gradually they came to disagreements amongst their viewpoints. Plato concluded that the highest reality was the forms, or ideas, while Aristotle refuted such concepts, claiming the physical world to be the most real. Rooted in different philosophical origins, the two began to build vast networks of ideals, often having completely different conclusions as to how to accomplish day to day activities in practicality. One of the most important quarrels was the two’s views on justice and its essence. To ascertain what justice is to Plato, one must first assess Plato’s
…show more content…
He built to an in depth ethical doctrine centered around moderation and perpetual flourishing. Perhaps more often accepted in today’s society is Aristotle's straight forwards definition of justice, which is, “Equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally”. For example; pay, being paid too great or too little in accordance to one’s labor is an unjust price. Instead the pay should be a moderation of the two, adhering to what is proportional to the worker’s efforts. Justice is strongly tied to an individual’s morals, however its branches span further than that. Aristotle’s justice, akin to Plato, is strongly tied to the polis, or civilians. The good civilians just duty is to keep the partnership of community maintained. Thus the authoritative rule determines what is the justice of the civilian. Where an act may be just on moral grounds, it may not be just on social grounds and would potentially equate to an unjust act. For example the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which are still morally argued to this day. From a morally just perspective, this was grossly wrong as thousands of civilians were slain, however, from a politically just perspective, it was fair as it prevented the deaths of potentially far more had the war waged on opposed to ending upon the subsequent truce. Often the good person and the good citizen are different, though the …show more content…
Regarding civilian justice, there is the duty to maintain the partnership of the polis yet there are only loose explanations as to who dictates this. If it is indeed the authoritative power who should be followed, what actions should be taken if they threaten the polis’ partnership? A conflict is constructed as to if the civilian should continue to follow authority or take matters into their own hands. Plato and Aristotle’s arguments, while lying in two completely different realms, serve similar purposes. They both attempt to remedy societies struggles through the morals of the individuals who are a part of the broad populace. To reach this stage though, they use completely different routes, Plato favors the metaphysical while Aristotle favors the physical world to substantiate their
He built to an in depth ethical doctrine centered around moderation and perpetual flourishing. Perhaps more often accepted in today’s society is Aristotle's straight forwards definition of justice, which is, “Equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally”. For example; pay, being paid too great or too little in accordance to one’s labor is an unjust price. Instead the pay should be a moderation of the two, adhering to what is proportional to the worker’s efforts. Justice is strongly tied to an individual’s morals, however its branches span further than that. Aristotle’s justice, akin to Plato, is strongly tied to the polis, or civilians. The good civilians just duty is to keep the partnership of community maintained. Thus the authoritative rule determines what is the justice of the civilian. Where an act may be just on moral grounds, it may not be just on social grounds and would potentially equate to an unjust act. For example the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which are still morally argued to this day. From a morally just perspective, this was grossly wrong as thousands of civilians were slain, however, from a politically just perspective, it was fair as it prevented the deaths of potentially far more had the war waged on opposed to ending upon the subsequent truce. Often the good person and the good citizen are different, though the …show more content…
Regarding civilian justice, there is the duty to maintain the partnership of the polis yet there are only loose explanations as to who dictates this. If it is indeed the authoritative power who should be followed, what actions should be taken if they threaten the polis’ partnership? A conflict is constructed as to if the civilian should continue to follow authority or take matters into their own hands. Plato and Aristotle’s arguments, while lying in two completely different realms, serve similar purposes. They both attempt to remedy societies struggles through the morals of the individuals who are a part of the broad populace. To reach this stage though, they use completely different routes, Plato favors the metaphysical while Aristotle favors the physical world to substantiate their