A Witty Title
Justice is defined as the advantage of the stronger in The Republic of Plato Book 1. Thrasymarchus elaborates that there are different types of governments: tyrannies, democracies, and aristocracies and each government makes laws according to their own particular interests. These laws are the justice which they deliver to their citizens. Anyone who breaks the law isn’t just. Since the government has the power to make the laws, it is the stronger. Therefore, justice is the interest of the stronger.
Plato’s character, Socrates, develops the ideal city called Kalliipolis. The philosopher-kings, also called Guardians, are the rulers, the stronger, of Kallipolis. The Guardians, the only people who can claim actual knowledge and are …show more content…
Socrates refutes Thrasymarchus by demonstrating that rulers are liable to error and pass laws that are not in their best interest. Some laws command citizens to behave contrary to the interests of the stronger. If justice is merely obeying laws then justice is not always the interest of the stronger. Then, Thrasymarchus counters that when rulers pass laws contrary to their interest, then they’re not the stronger at that point in time. Socrates proceeds to explain that every art has an interest. The art of medicine is concerned with the interests of the patient. The art of horsemanship is concerned with the interest of the horse. No art is concerned with its own interest because it has none. No physician in so far as he is a physician considers his own good in what he prescribes, but only the good of the patient. Thus, a ruler makes laws in the interest of the ruled and not in the interest of himself.
Censorship is in the interest of the stronger, the philosopher-kings, and is the educational curriculum Socrates wants to have in order to produce certain kinds of people, so they can influence the shaping and development of the society. Unfortunately, using censorship is problematic. Not only is the definition of justice is arguable, but issues in Socrates’ claim and the concept whether censorship is worth the risk of losing respect can
Justice is defined as the advantage of the stronger in The Republic of Plato Book 1. Thrasymarchus elaborates that there are different types of governments: tyrannies, democracies, and aristocracies and each government makes laws according to their own particular interests. These laws are the justice which they deliver to their citizens. Anyone who breaks the law isn’t just. Since the government has the power to make the laws, it is the stronger. Therefore, justice is the interest of the stronger.
Plato’s character, Socrates, develops the ideal city called Kalliipolis. The philosopher-kings, also called Guardians, are the rulers, the stronger, of Kallipolis. The Guardians, the only people who can claim actual knowledge and are …show more content…
Socrates refutes Thrasymarchus by demonstrating that rulers are liable to error and pass laws that are not in their best interest. Some laws command citizens to behave contrary to the interests of the stronger. If justice is merely obeying laws then justice is not always the interest of the stronger. Then, Thrasymarchus counters that when rulers pass laws contrary to their interest, then they’re not the stronger at that point in time. Socrates proceeds to explain that every art has an interest. The art of medicine is concerned with the interests of the patient. The art of horsemanship is concerned with the interest of the horse. No art is concerned with its own interest because it has none. No physician in so far as he is a physician considers his own good in what he prescribes, but only the good of the patient. Thus, a ruler makes laws in the interest of the ruled and not in the interest of himself.
Censorship is in the interest of the stronger, the philosopher-kings, and is the educational curriculum Socrates wants to have in order to produce certain kinds of people, so they can influence the shaping and development of the society. Unfortunately, using censorship is problematic. Not only is the definition of justice is arguable, but issues in Socrates’ claim and the concept whether censorship is worth the risk of losing respect can