Desirable Nature Of Justice example essay topic

In the first book of the Republic Socrates and Thrasymachus argue about the nature of justice. Thrasymachus claims that justice is the advantage of the stronger. He also claims that Socrates' arguments against that position stem from a naive set of beliefs about the real intentions of rulers, and an uncritical approach to the way words acquire their meaning. Present the arguments on both sides.

Who do you think is right? Justify your position. In the first book of the Republic Plato orchestrates a dialogue between his teacher Socrates and one of his peers Thrasymachus in order to demonstrate the desirable nature of justice. In this essay I shall present Thrasymachus argument that justice is a tool of oppression wielded by the strong over the weak, whereas injustice provides a happy and fulfilled existence, and Socrates notion that justice is a desirable commodity and characteristic that benefits all individuals and is the only way to achieve any common goal. I believe that both philosophers have elements of truth in their arguments, however in the essay I intend to show that it is not possible to agree entirely with either party because of the underlying premise of their argument. I shall demonstrate that neither party has a correct view because they base their arguments on examples whose essence is incompatible with the concept of justice, and refute their claims due to the obvious fallacy of arguing two extremes when considering human nature.

In the first book of the Republic, Thrasymachus states that justice is not desirable. He describes human behaviour as fundamentally self-interested, and states that justice is 'an advantage of the stronger' employed to suppress 'the weaker'. He submits the view that injustice is therefore preferable in relation to politics and to common living. Thrasymachus postulates that it is right and just to obey the rules of the state created by the ruling power, but that the ruling power will be making rules that benefit themselves. He supports his claim that the ruling power capitalist upon the weaker party by drawing a parallel between the profession of government and the profession of sheep herding: 'The shepherd and the herdsman study the good of their flock and herds (for) the good of their masters and themselves'. He considers that rulers rule with the objective of procuring some profit from them.

On a basic level pursuit of self interest is natural, right and serves the individual best. For example, during the crusades King Richard raised the taxes of the people in order to pursue the Holy Grail as it served him best and not because it served the people best. Thrasymachus has inferred that rulers are unjust by default, but strengthens his view by emphasis ing that these men are submitting to their nature. However, there is also the proposition only unjust men will become rulers because they will compete for the honours and financial gain, whereas the just man is too humble for this kind of contest. The rulers compete for leadership in an unjust way to prevent themselves being ruled by another unjust man. Thrasymachus claims that this realisation about the nature of justice is a strength and that the unjust man will fight for the commodities in life that ultimately engender happiness.

Therefore, since he believes that the just man is ignorant and unwise because he is being manipulated, while the unjust man leads a more fulfilling life of power, freedom and enjoying everything he desires; justice is undesirable while injustice is a virtue. In his dialogues with Thrasymachus about the nature of justice Socrates does not forward a complete theory of what justice is and why it is a desirable feature in society. Instead Socrates disputes the theory posited by Thrasymachus, and draws his beliefs by reversing Thrasymachus' argument. Socrates strives to prove that justice is not the implement of the stronger or ruling power, that injustice is a weakness and that those who utilise injustice have less fulfilling lives than the just men. Socrates attempts to justify that justice is not an implement of the strong that is exercised over weaker parties in order to exact behaviour that will benefit the stronger party. He founds this belief in the following argument.

Justice cannot serve itself; it must have a subject to which to be directed. Socrates uses the analogy that a 'true' doctor is not a businessman or wage-earner but a professional that serves the pursuit of health. Socrates also attacks Thrasymachus example of a sheep herder stating that the business of a shepherd's skill is devoted to the welfare of the flock of which he is in charge, and his procurement of a wage is additional to his vocation. This is because 'we differentiate between one art or profession and another by their different function' and not because of the financial gain. Therefore, a person practising the art of governing works in the interest of the obedient general public, and justice is what is best for them not the ruler.

It may be questioned why a just man would consent to take up office since it means that he must always rule for the benefit of others and not himself, but Socrates supplies that just men agree to rule because they are aware that if they refuse then the position may be bestowed upon a man less just than himself. Socrates then endeavours to establish that justice is a virtue and strength, while injustice is a deficiency and weakness. He posits that in the same way that doctors do not attempt to surpass the skills of other doctors a just man will not attempt to excel other just men, and will only challenge unjust men. Alternatively, unjust men will challenge just men but also challenge other unjust men, equally a man that lacks knowledge will dispute both parties with and without knowledge. Therefore, if the ethics of the unjust man are parallel with an ignorant man, it must follow that unjust men are also ignorant men. If it is possible to associate unfavourable characteristics such as ignorance with injustice, then injustice cannot be a virtue.

Socrates asserts that we cannot make an association between injustice and strength because unjust men cannot achieve any common action, since their disputations and disunity between themselves as individuals and as a group, compounded with their conflict with just men, would make any action impossible. Using this evidence it appears that unjust men could not rule tyrannically, as oppressing their subjects and maintaining this oppression could not be achieved, which proves injustice to be a weakness. Finally Socrates attacks Thrasymachus claim that unjust men live more fulfilling and happier lives in comparison with just men. He suggests that everything has a function and its peculiar excellence, without which it would not be able to perform its function. For example, the function of the eyes is sight and if they lacked their peculiar excellence they would not be able to perform their function. Socrates argues that the function of the mind is life and that as its peculiar excellence is justice, therefore if the mind contains the antithesis of justice then it will not be able to perform its function optimally.

Therefore, the just mind and just man will have a good, happy and prosperous life, while the unjust man will have a miserable life. In order to explicate the claims of Socrates and Thrasymachus examples of craftsmanship have been employed. It is possible to argue that both sides to this argument rely heavily on the parallel between the relationship a craftsman has with his subject to justify their positions. However, I do not feel that a comparison between a doctor and the practice of medicine, and a ruler and the practice of justice is appropriate, since there is no concrete definition of justice. We are attempting to justify the necessity of justice without defining it, which is absurd. If we substitute the example of a doctor for other professions then this criticisms becomes clearer.

For example, a fashion designer subject is fashion. However, fashion is an evolving and malleable subject that is only defined by what popular and there are dispute concerning whether it is popular with consumers or with the designers themselves. It may be question whether we have an intrinsic sense of fashion instilled within us or whether we are controlled by the beliefs of another, which we can relate to justice. It is possible to ask whether justice is something tangible concept that we all have or whether our sense of justice is defined by the ruling power. However, we do not have a clear answer because we have not defined what justice is in this discussion. Although I recognise that vocations in the fifth century were fewer and more community grounded than those in the twenty-first, it is necessary to evaluate Plato's arguments in a contemporary context because these theories are designed to define justice in a timeless manner.

The point raised by my comparison is that however plausible the analogy there is a fundamental flaw in comparing justice with fashion, medicine and sheep, and as these examples are used to based arguments upon we cannot evaluate either argument properly. One major criticism of Plato is that his characters and arguments are superficial and only allow for two extreme of the unquantifiable subject of justice. The arguments posited by Socrates and Thrasymachus suggest that men are exceptionally just or exceptionally unjust, geniuses and ignoramuses, with no intermediate levels. Even Plato's presentation of his characters adopts this monochrome attitude.

The propositions that he wishes to discredit are posited by an unsavoury idiot, while the views that he wishes to credit are presented by a sage and calm intellectual. Plato uses examples of craftsmanship to support his arguments, which generates the problem that without defining justice, Plato refers to unjust and just men, without acknowledging that human nature may contain both attributes and both necessary facets for the attainment of a fulfilling life. To elucidate my criticism I will use an example of a vocation from modern commerce, a marketing executive. We may at first argue that marketing executives execute their responsibilities with introversion and avarice. However, if we accept Socrates argument that a person that may be called a 'real' marketing executive works to promote a product, for it is the product that is the subject and the fact that he earns a wage for this execution is an additional to his vocation. We may then discuss Socrates suggestion that 'just men will only compete against unjust men, while the unjust men will compete with the just and unjust alike'.

Part of this duty is to make the product in question more popular than any other similar product on the market. These other products will be represented by other marketing companies and other marketing executives. There must be cooperation between people of the same kind in order to achieve any action as a group. Therefore, since there is competition there must be disunity, which displays injustice and ignorance. If Socrates is correct then marketing executives and similar occupations are all unjust.

However, in order to run a marketing business successfully there must be unity within companies, which suggests that they cannot be unjust or squabble amongst themselves as Socrates implies. It becomes clear that human nature and behaviour cannot be generalised in this way because human beings have the capacity to be both just and unjust, especially when justice has not been defined. Thrasymachus and Socrates raise some important points in relation to the nature of justice, although it is possible to suggest that they are debating on different planes, the former positing an argument of how justice is and the latter presenting how it should be. Thrasymachus believes that justice is doing what is best for someone else and that it is therefore 'the advantage of the strong' and that injustice provides a better life and is a position of strength that provides a more prosperous existence. Socrates proposes that justice is in favour of 'the weaker party' and is a position of strength that provides a more fulfilling life. However, both arguments attempt to provide an explanation for the nature of justice without defining it and base their arguments on tangible concepts such as crafts and professions in order to give weight to their beliefs.

Without a definition of the subject we cannot make a concrete comparison as it is unrealistic to try to prove that the nature of justice is the same as the nature of medicine. In addition, both arguments endeavour to confine human nature to extremes, just and unjust, knowledgeable and ignorant, and good and bad, without acknowledging the depth of the human experience and intermediate levels that we have. The conclusions of these arguments are incongruous with human nature and when we speak of justice, we are trying to define a concept that has distinct links with human nature. Therefore, I cannot say that either of the positions is 'right' as neither acknowledge my nature and have attempted to justify that justice is a commodity to desire or expel without explicating justice itself.

Word Count: 2120

Bibliography

Plato, The Republic, (Penguin Books, 2003).