Skip to main content

Does Socrates give a convincing account of justice in the first four books of "The Republic"?

This is a very interesting question! The answer will depend upon whether you agree with Socrates' definition of justice in the first four books. Then, you will have to decide whether he adequately addresses the necessity for justice. First, let's explore his main points in all four books.


In Book One, Socrates tries to define justice. In this book, three definitions of justice are discussed. The first one (voiced by Cephalus) is the traditional Greek concept of justice: honesty in all transactions and diligence in paying off one's debts. The second definition of justice (voiced by Cephalus' son, Polemarchus) involves giving to everyone his/her just due. Thus, the enemy is owed retribution, while the friend is owed loyalty and protection.


Here, Thrasymachus chimes in and argues that these two definitions of justice are lacking. He proposes a third definition of justice that takes into account the advantage dominant individuals have over others. Thrasymachus sees the conventional definitions of justice as limiting and unnatural; he believes that true justice allows the dominant man to claim what is rightfully his. Thus, Thrasymachus proposes justice as a "might makes right" concept. Meanwhile, Socrates argues in support of the just life in the conventional sense.


In Book Two, Glaucon and Adeimantus argue that justice is sought for its benefits and that, if justice offered no practical benefits of any consequence, no one would seek it. They challenge Socrates to prove that justice should be sought for itself. So, Socrates must defend his belief that people are happier being just than unjust. He proceeds to show how a just city can be used as an analogy to describe the benefits of being a just individual. In Socrates' fictionalized just city, every individual knows his/her place. In order to protect this "good" society, warriors must be stationed around it. These soldiers are to be carefully chosen and carefully taught the rudiments of being good warriors. They must be gentle with the innocent and absolutely ruthless with the enemy.


In Book Three, Socrates maintains that these soldiers or "auxiliaries" must be well-educated in order to preside over and to protect a just city. The auxiliaries themselves must be just; they must read only poetry or works that promote self-discipline, humility, honesty, and obedience. Above all, they must receive adequate training in the arts of war. Socrates also proposes that the rulers or "guardians" of the just city should be chosen from the auxiliary class. Ultimately, Socrates' point is that a just society is made up of just individuals.


In Book Four, Socrates continues to argue that a just life is a happy life, regardless of whether it brings about practical or material benefits. In this book, Socrates proposes that a just city is ruled by three important elements: wisdom, courage, and self-discipline. Thus,  for a city to be just, wisdom must rest in its ruling (guardian) class, courage must rest in its warrior (auxiliary) class, and self-restraint must rest in its citizen (producer) class. Justice is thus rendered when each class performs its prescribed functions to perfection.


Socrates then equates the just city to the just individual, wherein resides the three concepts of wisdom, courage, and self-discipline in harmony. To Socrates, a just soul is a balanced soul (and also a happy one).


So, there you have it! Now, you must decide whether Socrates gives a convincing account of justice. Do you agree with his hypothesis that justice should be sought for itself rather than for its practical benefits? Essentially, do you agree with Socrates' argument that a just soul is a happy soul, regardless of time, place, or circumstance? Your answer to these two questions will decide your response to your original question.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more