Justice in Platos Republic :: Papers Justice Plato Republic Essays

Justice in Plato's Republic Justice. What is justice? In this world where many people look out only for themselves, justice can be considered the happiness of oneself. But because selfish men do not always decide our standards in society, to find a definition, society should look at the opinions of many. Just as in the modern society to which we live, where everyone feels justice has a different meaning, the society of Plato also struggled with the same problem. In this paper, I will look into the Republic, one of the books of Plato that resides heavily on defining an answer to the meaning of Justice, and try to find an absolute definition. I will also give my opinion on what I personally think justice is. During the time Socrates and his fellow citizens spent looking for a definition, they came across many different examples. Well-known Athenians, such as Polemarchus, bring out their own definitions of what justice is, with examples like Justice is "Doing the right thing, or "Giving everyone his due." But soon after these definitions on justice were given, they were shot down by the quick wits of Socrates. Throughout the books of The Republic, I enjoyed reading the many ways that Plato picked apart the flaws in examples by others. It seems that Plato could find flaws without spending much time actually examining the definition. Friends and men of Athens had to restate and restructure their definitions time in and time out during the search for the meaning of Justice. Without the skill that Plato possessed in examining faults in definitions, one can quickly assume that a faulty definition works to be true. I did this many times while reading through different definitions. For example, the definition Polemarchus gives in section two of book one, saying that justice is giving everyone what is "appropriate" to him. To me, an example like this would fit as a definition, because without much examination, it works well for most situations. For example, if a man is good, then an appropriate return for his goodness is to be good back to him. But if a man acts in a bad or troublesome way, an equally bad punishment is needed to counter his actions. I see this fitting, but Socrates of course easily found a flaw, finding this definition useless if followed, because of there not being a person best at benefiting friends and harming enemies.