1.
Happiness:
As Socrates established when rebuking Thrasymachus’ proposal of justice,
justice inevitably leads to happiness because he states “the just mind and the
just man will have a good life” (Book I, 353e) and “the man who has a good life
is prosperous and happy.” (Book I, 353e) Therefore, doing right allows a man to
lead a good life and be happy with it.
Unity:
Socrates states that injustice leads to disunity of purpose because when people
commit wrongdoings within a group, the end result is enmity and anarchy. “But
if they treat each other justly, there will be unity and purpose and friendly
feeling among them,” (Book I, 351d) says Socrates.
Strength:
Following his belief that justice creates unity, Socrates argues justice
creates strength of the individual and society. He argues that an unjust group
is incapable of any common action, thus the group is weak, and the individual
becomes weak because he is preoccupied by the group’s internal strife.
Wisdom:
Socrates states, “…intelligence is good, lack of it bad.” (Book I, 349e)
Socrates establishes that a man with professional knowledge is wise and a wise
man is good and a good man does not compete with his fellows, only with his
opposite. Thus, Socrates illustrates that the just are wise.
Excellence:
The mind, like any other thing, has a function and the ability to operate well
or badly. Therefore, like any other thing, the mind has a “peculiar excellence”
(Book I, 353e). Socrates states that justice is the excellence of the mind
while injustice is the mind’s defect. Socrates values excellence on par with
wisdom and justice.
Peace:
Socrates criticizes Polemarchus’ definition of justice and in the process
emphasizes that it is “not the function of the just man to harm either his
friends or anyone else.” (Book I, 335d) Therefore, just men do not harm others
which highlights that Socrates believes justice requires peace.
2.
After establishing that justice, like medicine,
is a skill, Socrates continues that justice is the “skill that enables us to
help and injure one’s friends and enemies.” (Book I, 332b) Socrates questions
when justice is useful in society, which Polemarchus consequently answers when
things are to be kept safe. Socrates turns this statement around by
establishing those “good at keeping a thing will be good at stealing it.” (Book
I, 333c) Thus, Socrates tackles Polemarchus’ initial assumption that justice is
a matter of giving every man his due by proposing justice is a kind of stealing
even though it is used to help a friend and harm an enemy. Furthermore, Socrates,
after having Polemarchus agree that we ought to give both our friends and our
enemies their due, argues that doing good for your friends and harm to your
enemies is difficult without knowing the meaning of friends and enemies. There
are those who seem honest when they actually are not, and thus it is possible
for men to “injure their friends, who in their eyes are bad, and help their
enemies, who are good.” (Book I, 334e) Changing the definition of friends and
enemies to those who seem and are respectively good and evil, Socrates changes
the definition of justice to doing good for friends who are good, and harm to
enemies who are evil. Socrates then argues that harming creates a man more
unjust and just men will not use their justice to make others unjust and
therefore just and good men do not harm others, even enemies, but the opposite.
Polemarchus’ position is defeated at this point because Socrates questioned the
very meaning of friends and enemies, justice, and the purpose of a just man, to
which Polemarchus had no objections.
I do agree that these admissions lead Polemarchus to doubt his own
position and thus are fatal to his previous position. I do agree with Socrates’
conclusion that the function of a good and just man is to help, not harm. Also,
I do not agree that justice is a type of skill; instead, I believe justice is
dependent upon one’s actions and their moral implications within a society.
Following, I do not believe that justice can be improved upon like a skill for
one’s actions are determined by one’s own morals, which can change but not be
improved upon.
3.
Thrasymachus held firm that the pursuit of
self-interest or injustice pays better than justice does. Following, Socrates
established that the “just man does not compete with his like, but only his
unlike, while the unjust man competes with both like and unlike.” (Book I,
349d-e) Socrates then followed with the precise definition of a professional
man that the professional, good, and just man does not compete with his
fellows, however, an unjust and ignorant man without intelligence competes with
his those like and unlike him. Thus, Socrates undermines Thrasymachus’
statement that injustice is wise and excellent, while justice is the opposite.
Socrates’ criticism of this point was rather weak because he drew from
assumptions; after all, who is to say that the just and wise man does not
compete with his fellows to be better at the job than others. Students, for
example, go through a competitive process at medical school in order to become
doctors. Students who put more work and effort in the job often become doctors
and those who do not put effort into their work do not become doctors. Therefore,
students must compete, even if by doing so they are working to benefit the
patients. I do not think there is anything bad or unwise about competition, in
fact, competition drives professional workers to do their jobs better.
Competition is not the sign of the bad and ignorant as long as all rules are
followed and it does not turn malicious.
Socrates further argued Thrasymachus’ point by giving the example of a
society, group, or army. In the case of injustice, men within the group would
be causing wrongdoings to each other and therefore fostering disunity and
weakness. Thus, he follows that in order to have unity and effective joint
action between men, the men of the group must act justly towards each other. This
section of Socrates’ criticism is enjoyably concise and accurate and therefore
is effective in tearing down Thrasymachus’ view that injustice is a sign of
strength. Thrasymachus stated that injustice is a sign of strength in the case
of the individual, but Socrates applied injustice to a society and illustrated
how impractical it is for all people within a group to act unjustly. Thus,
justice is actually the sign of a strong society. I agree with Socrates’
criticism of this point, however, I wish he addressed injustice on the
individual level as that was Thrasymachus’ original point. Personally, I think
justice cannot be applied to the individual because the definition and maintenance
of justice must be decided upon and enforced by a society. Justice, were it
applied only to the individual, would be subjective and arbitrary and thus lead
to disunity within a society. Also, I do not think it was necessary to mention
the gods are just and therefore friends of the just men.
Socrates’ final criticism of Thrasymachus’ point that injustice pays
better than justice was that the just man is actually happier than the unjust
man. Socrates began defining the function of a thing and used this to define
the function of the mind. The mind’s function is life and the mind has its own
specific excellence. Socrates used the agreement that “just was the particular
excellence of the mind and injustice its defect” (Book I, 354e) to assume the “just
mind and just man will have a good life, and the unjust a bad life.” (Book I,
354e) Since it never pays to be miserable, Socrates concludes that injustice
never pays better than justice. In this way, Socrates dismembers Thrasymachus’
belief that the unjust man lives better than the just man. Personally, I
believe that justice will make me happier than injustice, but who is to
generalize this is the case for all humans? Some people surely take pleasure in
doing others harm. Tyrants, to reiterate Thrasymachus’ belief, take pleasure in
their wealth and power that is gained from taking from the people of the state.
I do not think justice has anything to do with happiness and I think it is
impossible to generalize just acts make people happier than unjust ones.
4.
I do not fully agree with Glaucon and
Adeimantus. Glaucon, using the example of the invisibility ring, stated that
both a just and unjust man would steal, murder, or seduce whenever it pleased
them to do so if they had no fear of detection. I do agree that laws restrict
what a man does and lead him to act more justly out of fear of punishment;
however, I believe some people genuinely feel bad about committing unjust acts
and their consciences will overpower the want to gain or harm. Socrates would
favor my assertion that the heart of the just man stems from his good conscience
not at the fear of punishment. I also agree that injustice pays better than
justice in the extreme cases within these specific societies provided by
Glaucon. Isolation and detest from a society when the man has done nothing
unjust proves to me that the society is unjust and therefore a revolution
should occur. Justice, as I see it, can only exist in a society; it is the
generally agreed upon moral right and this is enforced by laws to restrict
unjust acts. The moral rights stem from the people’s consciences. Without the
concept of justice in a society, anarchy would ensue, and on this point I agree
with Glaucon.
I thus disagree with Adeimantus’
criticism of justice that people must have pure intentions in order to be just,
because all the essentially matters is external actions because justice only
lives in a society. Injustice should be punished and justice should be rewarded
in order to have a successful society, Socrates would argue. Injustice applies
to unjust acts, for if a man has unjust intentions but nothing shows externally
of them, then it does not harm anyone and thus cannot be punished. Justice, similarly,
applies to just acts, for if a man has just intentions but has actions deemed
unjust by the society, then the man must be punished. If a man acts justly
because he wishes to bolster his good reputation then I deem that perfectly acceptable.
If a man acts justly because he genuinely wishes the betterment of others and
in no way the betterment of himself, then I deem that acceptable although
unbelievable. Just acts always seem to better oneself and Socrates would agree
with me because it was he who stated “it never pays to be miserable, but to be
happy.” (Book I, 354a) Thus, Socrates concurs that living a just life benefits
the just man because it makes him happy and humans strive for happiness in
life. The intentions lying underneath just acts are not relevant and thus I
disagree with Adeimantus criticism of justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment