Mid-term exam question 1 In the book Plato Republic, translated by Christopher Row, Plato and what would be his modern colleagues, embark on a journey to define justice on an individual level and a city level. For Plato, justice or morality begins with a healthy mind or soul. When looking closer into ones soul. The soul is made up of three parts, The rational or reasoning section, the appetitive section and lastly the spirit. For the soul to be just each of these sections must perform their proper jobs. For example, Plato writes, “in relation to his soul, one better and one worse, and that when the naturally better element is in control of the worse (137). In this quote, Plato is explaining his premise for the just soul or individual.
…show more content…
He defends justice against all odds and in his world just will always beat un just. To display this Plato writes, “I thought I showed how superior justice is to in justice,” (56). Plato says this to his comrades after they state what they believe justice is. In Plato’s mind, he see his fellow Elenchus members claims as invalid. His first partner in discussion is Thrasymachus, who is a sophist, during his argument with Plato he claims justice is “what is in the interest of the stronger”(19). Thrasymachus’ answer is not actual an account to what justice is but rather is degrading justice. The idea behind this, is being just and following rules can actually be doing what is in the interest or benefits the stronger (un just). This however this claim differs from Glaucons challenge. Glaucon sees being just as a means to an end, which is shown when he says, “that they’ll gain by making a contract- to ban the doing of in justice, and so being the victim of it as well” (45). Glaucon’s claim found a way around the exact thing Thraysmachus’s claim inhibits; people being taken advantage because of being just. His idea of the social contract is that, if a I am just and the next person is just then by doing so neither one of us gets hurt. As opposed to Thraysmachus’s challenge where there will always be one winner and one
He defends justice against all odds and in his world just will always beat un just. To display this Plato writes, “I thought I showed how superior justice is to in justice,” (56). Plato says this to his comrades after they state what they believe justice is. In Plato’s mind, he see his fellow Elenchus members claims as invalid. His first partner in discussion is Thrasymachus, who is a sophist, during his argument with Plato he claims justice is “what is in the interest of the stronger”(19). Thrasymachus’ answer is not actual an account to what justice is but rather is degrading justice. The idea behind this, is being just and following rules can actually be doing what is in the interest or benefits the stronger (un just). This however this claim differs from Glaucons challenge. Glaucon sees being just as a means to an end, which is shown when he says, “that they’ll gain by making a contract- to ban the doing of in justice, and so being the victim of it as well” (45). Glaucon’s claim found a way around the exact thing Thraysmachus’s claim inhibits; people being taken advantage because of being just. His idea of the social contract is that, if a I am just and the next person is just then by doing so neither one of us gets hurt. As opposed to Thraysmachus’s challenge where there will always be one winner and one