Elaborating the Definition of Justice Plato, the Republic is about the history of political thought, it includes long conversations and arguments among several intellects. Thrasymachus, a fierce fighter, argues that justice is what is good for the stronger and that the unjust man lives a more profitable life than the just man does. Socrates, Plato’s teacher, play the role in defending justice in all these arguments. He praises justices for itself and its consequences. Next, Glaucon and Adeimantus, sons of Ariston, restore Thrasymachus’s argument in a different prospect of perfectly unjust life is better than a perfectly just life. Once again, Socrates defenses justice with the aid of a hypothetical city and corresponds justice in city with
…show more content…
He means anything that a ruler thinks is good is justice. Rulers proceed ruling power to control and make laws for their cities; hence, what rulers think is just for people under their authority is justice. Therefore, if a person disobey any law he receives punishment for acting unjustly. Then Socrates shows humans are fallible, liable to make mistakes, and so are the rulers. Thrasymachus claims that a ruler to the extent he is a ruler does not make mistakes, so the ruler decides what is good for him and the subjects should carry out his order. Socrates exemplify with the art of medicine and shows that no one in authority considers his own benefits but the benefit of people under his authority. Thrasymachus objects with the example of shepherd’s concerns for his sheep with the aim of earning a living. Thereafter, they rephrase the outcome of justice benefits both the ruler and his followers. Next, Thrasymachus presents his second belief that life of the unjust is better than the life of the just. He claims that living an unjust life is more profitable than living a just life. Socrates examines the human nature, or the characteristics of just man and unjust man. A just man would always chooses justice and guide others to justice. Whereas an unjust man guides himself and others with his lawless desires, and proceed with unjust actions. Hence, just man lives happy life because he is wisdom and good will; the unjust man live a miserable life because of his ignorance and evil
He means anything that a ruler thinks is good is justice. Rulers proceed ruling power to control and make laws for their cities; hence, what rulers think is just for people under their authority is justice. Therefore, if a person disobey any law he receives punishment for acting unjustly. Then Socrates shows humans are fallible, liable to make mistakes, and so are the rulers. Thrasymachus claims that a ruler to the extent he is a ruler does not make mistakes, so the ruler decides what is good for him and the subjects should carry out his order. Socrates exemplify with the art of medicine and shows that no one in authority considers his own benefits but the benefit of people under his authority. Thrasymachus objects with the example of shepherd’s concerns for his sheep with the aim of earning a living. Thereafter, they rephrase the outcome of justice benefits both the ruler and his followers. Next, Thrasymachus presents his second belief that life of the unjust is better than the life of the just. He claims that living an unjust life is more profitable than living a just life. Socrates examines the human nature, or the characteristics of just man and unjust man. A just man would always chooses justice and guide others to justice. Whereas an unjust man guides himself and others with his lawless desires, and proceed with unjust actions. Hence, just man lives happy life because he is wisdom and good will; the unjust man live a miserable life because of his ignorance and evil