Socrates Justice Analysis

Amazing Essays
Socrates seeks to define justice, and in doing so outlines the four cardinal virtues; wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. Socrates believes each virtue represents a state of the human soul, and is representative of the various classes in Callipolis. Wisdom is embodied by the guardian rulers, and allows them to govern using their rational capacities. Courage is embodied by the guardian auxiliaries, and allows them to protect and fight for the just city by not changing their attitudes when facing pain or pleasure (442bc). Temperance is achieved by the harmony of the state and the fulfillment of roles by each class. In this state, Socrates explains that justice is achieved when each member of a given class has their rights upheld, and …show more content…
The most notable objection I present is the argument that I do not believe Socrates can justify the claim that people with just souls are practically just. An individual with a just soul, to be pragmatically just, must refrain from unjust actions, and it must be that the actions they perform are done so because it is required by justice. Socrates must be able to prove that people with just souls will satisfy both claims. Socrates defends his definition regarding the first claim by citing several examples, stating that a person with a just soul would be chosen to perform duties that could easily be taken advantage of, and would not betray his fellow citizens (442e-443a). Socrates does not present a thorough argument as to why those with just souls would never act in pragmatically unjust manner, but at least references why he does not believe they would. With regards to the issue of individuals with just souls behaving in a just manner because it is required by justice, Socrates does not specifically address this concern. Socrates himself states that philosopher kings must be compelled to rule (473d), and even though they are just, and ruling is the just action to perform, they would not perform the act of ruling even though justice requires it. It would seem implied, based on Socrates definition of justice, that philosopher kings, given their just souls, would want to rule …show more content…
Since philosophers have the best judgement, as we previously argued, then it must be that the characteristic pleasure of philosophers in the best pleasure (582-583). This line of reasoning in unsatisfactory, however, since it does not definitively prove why the philosopher believes their pleasure is the best pleasure, and why the distinction in pleasures is made. Socrates refutes these objections by arguing that the characteristic pleasures of money lovers and honor lovers are considered pleasures because they fill a bodily pleasure that would be painful if unfulfilled, while the philosopher’s characteristic pleasure do not fill a painful deficit, and thus must be more genuine that other pleasures

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    For Socrates knows that Simonides would not agree that a crazy man should be given his weapon back simply because the weapon belong to the man. Socrates knows that Simonides must have a motive for reasoning and must mean something else, something that maybe Socrates cannot understand. Polemarchus then tries to explain to Socrates that what Simonides really meant is that the friends should only do well to each other, and not hurt each other. So then Socrates questions Polermarchus again and asks him if that means that if Simonides also mean that you should do harm to your enemies. Polermarchus says that that’s exactly what Simonides means and again Socrates does not agree with this definition of justice.…

    • 1313 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    These series of questions culminate into Socrates’ conception of virtue leading him to reject Crito’s pleas for him to escapes because if he does he will be disobeying the laws of the state. By disobeying the law of the state he would be committing an injustice and doing what is wrong therefore harming his soul. If he harmed his soul, then he would not be living the virtuous or examined life which he states in the Apology “is not worth living”; so even if he disagrees with the state he must still obey its laws since that is, in his perception of virtue, just and right. This dialogue gives more understanding as to why Socrates questions the views and actions of others and gives practice to Plato’s teachings from Euthyphro and…

    • 1839 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Socrates and Protagoras argue virtue, as mentioned earlier, as something that could be taught or not. Protagoras starts his argument saying virtue cannot be taught, Socrates on the other hand believes otherwise. Socrates has the belief that virtue is knowledge and so can be taught, Protagoras disagrees with this point of view, he is against the belief that virtue is knowledge and if he does not believe this then virtue to him is unteachable. Socrates is on the side that knowledge is superior and all powerful and so it rules man. Protagoras believes that knowledge although being all powerful is treated like a slave as what rules man is not knowledge but other emotions such as anger, love, pleasure, pain, courage, and sometimes even fear.…

    • 1458 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Virtue ethics, therefore, yields guidelines for extremes of character to narrow the discrepancy between their respective vice and mean. Aristotle stresses that the feasibility for ethical theories to have a decision-making procedure is not possible. Finding the balance of a mean state, as a virtue is not systemized or calculated, however, the state of affairs of a particular situation must be accounted for. Aristotle (cited in Kraut, 2014) says a virtuous…

    • 1624 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    According to Glaucon, another student of Socrates, we are not. “ No one is willingly just; men will be just only if constrained.” (P.56-d) Glaucon challenges the principles of Justice. His explanation of justice is powerful because it holds some truth. When we shun evil away is for the fear of punishment. When we help others is for a hope of a reward.…

    • 703 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Even though Socrates provides the definition of justice -- each component functioning properly in order to maintain the balance of the whole -- in an attempt to demonstrate how it’s a good state for the soul, he fails to construct a strong argument on why humans seem naturally reluctant towards justice, as stated by Glaucon. At the least, Socrates was able to imply that those who inherently sway towards injustice, have imbalanced souls, yet even this claim is barely mentioned in his reply. Socrates’ analogy between health and justice, to which he takes the intrinsic goodness as a given, failed his intentions of proving his argument. He continued to argue on an unproven premise that health is inherently valuable since it’s a natural state (133). However, Socrates does not manage to explain how if a virtue makes it “natural”, it is automatically “intrinsically good”.…

    • 1319 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Additionally, Plato’s theory of hierocracy seems to not take into consideration the issue of self-determination. That is, despite the various role set in the society, individuals still do not have to perform on the hierarchy ladder. This then means that attaining a virtuous or rather well-ordered should do not necessarily mean that the person is virtuous. In the same way, I disagree with the argument that only philosophers would be best to rule a state. This is because apart from philosophers, other individuals may also take part in making judgement in critical…

    • 1424 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Crito Socrates Summary

    • 1021 Words
    • 5 Pages

    He cannot do this and break the principle for which he has been stood all his life. However, Crito is not quite convinced about all these because he still believes that Socrates is a victim of an unjust law; reason why Crito believe that it is right for Socrates to disobey the law. Socrates reminds Crito that by taking such an action would be a situation of returning evil for evil. This situation will not only harm his soul and corrupt oneself but will harm the other person as well. It is clear that escape is not in Socrates agenda since he has never believe that by doing two unjust, will make one just.…

    • 1021 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    I don’t think that this should have anything to do with the judgment of an action’s morality. An action, no matter how good, may be considered amoral or even immoral if someone performs it due to a bad motivation, such as money or power, but happiness is not a bad motivation. In fact, Aristotle says that it is better if someone associates happiness with ethical acts, and that enjoying virtuous things is a sign of a virtuous person. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states that, “Pleasure in doing virtuous acts is a sign that the virtuous disposition has been acquired: a variety of considerations show the essential connection of moral virtue with pleasure and pain.” It makes sense that someone who enjoys doing virtuous things could considered a virtuous person. It seems to me that Kant wants someone who hates virtuous acts but still performs them to be the virtuous person, but if someone enjoys the act, they are not virtuous at all.…

    • 1242 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Diogenes’ argument is that there is no objective truth about anything nonphysical or if there is objective truth then no one would be able to understand it or know it. Diogenes’ argument is “that the meaning of life is subjective because people disagree on it.” Before trying to disprove Diogenes’ philosophy, Socrates restates is argument back to Diogenes and teaches an…

    • 1385 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays