Socrates Vs Justice

892 Words 4 Pages
The first few paragraphs of this reading describe various definitions on what is or is not justice. Socrates starts off by giving a vague statement saying that justice is “doing one’s own,” as in a person performing their required role in their community. A statement that doesn’t clarify much. But even though there still isn’t an obvious manner to describe what justice it, it is much clearer what justice is not. A “thuggish” philosopher, Thrasymachus, comes up with the belief that it was in the public’s best interest not to act in accordance with justice since it only benefits the powerful and harms them. Socrates quickly debunks that, stating that “right is properly distinguished from mere might.” Then there is the philosopher, Glaucon, who …show more content…
It even shows a further contrast in how Jesus’ mercy doesn’t even allow that limited reprisal at some points.
Confucius emphasized strongly on the fact that the foundation of justice is based on ultimate authoritarianism. The author compares this to the similar manner in which the foundation of justice in the Bible is based on God.
In Leviticus 24, God 's commands are full of revenge and/or vengeance (i.e. "eye for eye") while in Matthew 5, God pretty much tells his disciples to abandon the principle of 'eye for eye, and tooth for tooth ' and to instead adopt one of peacemaking and righteousness (i.e. 'if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also).
The author describes what is unjust as being both lawless and unfair while what is just as lawful and fair in contrast. But this all or nothing definition of just seems flawed under Aristotle 's balance of mean.
He writes about how fair and equal are intermediate in between the two extreme unfair, which leads to the conclusion that what is just is also intermediate. Then he reaches the conclusions that what is just requires four things: what is intermediate and equal as well as, in relation to the intermediate, what is too much and too
…show more content…
But, as the author points out, this proportionality isn 't continuous "since there is no single term for both person and the item." Therefore, what is just is proportional and what is unjust unproportional. This leads to the conclusion that in an unjust action "one term becomes more and the other less;" the committer of the action receives more of the good and the victim the least. Though the ratio is reversed with an evil with the lesser evil being the greater good.
The author explains that humans are too flawed to rule. It is in our nature to lean towards self-interest which easily puts us on the course for tyranny. So only reason, the "guardian of what is just and...equal," not nature, can lead to a just social balance.
Justice in the Qur 'an is submission and the fear of God. Allah, as God is referred as, is described as "terrible in his retribution" yet all-forgiving. This forgiveness is shown through one of the themes of the Qur 'an: debt (something that can be considered central to the concept of justice). The example given explains a thief 's compensation for "what they have earned;" this is where the phrase "an eye for an eye" comes in followed closely by the biblical phrase "whosoever forgoes it [that is, retaliation]... that shall be from him

Related Documents