Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Philosophy Platonic Justice Platonic Justice Throughout Platos Republic, the subject of platonic justice and its goodness to its self arise and are discussed amongst Plato and his peers. At the beginning of The Republic, Plato asks the fundamental question of what is justice? Looking to define the ideal state of justice, Plato reasons that he must first define justice in theory before he can use justice practically. Platonic Justice is defined as being a harmony between the tripartite soul in which reasons guide the spirit and appetite. Justice is said to be good in itself and good in its practical ends. It is educating desires, implementing the human faculty of reason. Justice is not the interest of the stronger, but more the interest of the weaker. An unjust life, which is dominated by the spirit, leads one to an addiction for material goods or possessions. A platonically just life leads to harmony, balance, and virtue. A just life in this case allows attainment of satisfaction where as an unjust life does not. The truly unjust ultimately destroy themselves, whereas the truly just preserve themselves. Wether or not Platonic Justice is good for its own sake is to be determined. After Plato debates and dismisses that justice is the interest of the stronger and that the unjust life has an advantage to the just life, Plato, lacking a firm answer on justice seems to say that justice is a balance of the soul. As Plato is debating this question Thrasymachus joins in and presents the first possible definition of justice as the interest of the stronger, that might is right. Socrates enters the conversation and attempts to define justice. Socrates says that subjects obey their rulers and these rulers are not perfect, they sometimes make mistakes. If justice is the interest of the stronger and the stronger symbolizes the rulers, then when rulers rule rightly they make rules agreeable to their own interests. When rulers rule wrongly, they make rules contrary to their interests. The subjects are the ones who obeyed the rules instated by the rulers. Having shown that justice may not only be the interest of the stronger but also the injury, Plato further seeks the definition of justice. Socrates implements a usage of medicine. The art of medicine tends to the needs of the body, not to the interest of the medicine. If medicine attended to its own interest, it would serve no practical use. However, medicine considers the interest of the patients. The same can be said about doctors who consider the needs of their patients, not only his own needs. If the doctor only had interest in himself he would cease to be a doctor. Having argued back and forth Plato dismisses that justice is the interest of the stronger. Rulers who rule in their own interest breed unhappy subjects, ignoring the needs of the subjects for their own needs. In the past history has shown that discontent subjects rebel against their rulers. Thus, rulers should rule in the interest of the subjects. Upon realizing his situation, Thrasymacus changes his opinion, arguing that a ruler benefits in life by injustice. He also states that an unjust man benefits where a just man suffers. Thus, justice is a virtue, injustice a vice. A truly unjust person leads a life of individualism and anarchy, seeking to gain over both the just and unjust. This could not possibly lead to a comfortable and peaceful life. A set of unjust rulers would constantly suspect each other, unable to trust and always desiring to posses what others may have. Ultimately they would destroy themselves, so their injustice would be their vice. However, the just man does not seek more than other just men. Thus, the just benefits and are able to attain happiness and contentment, unworried of constantly protecting his own interest. Having shown that justice is not the interest of the stronger, an unjust life is worse than a just life, and the just person benefits over the unjust, Plato moves on to define justice and the just life. Plato reasons that justice is having a particular state of being. Justice is a function of the mind. Since reason separates us from nature, reason makes us superior to the rest of nature. Reason is our highest faculty and reason should be our highest goal. A life spent in pursuit of power, wealth, and honor is dominated by the spirit. Our reason gives us free will, thus a life dominated by spirit is not free, but a slave to itself, No one can be truly happy without a sense of limitation or balance. The spirited life becomes addicted to want , never realizing satisfaction. Like an animal the spirited man moves from one satiation to the next. However, a life dominated by reason, in which reason balances the spirited and appetitive natures to harmony, results in a good life. Thus the just person will have the appetitive, spirited, and reasoning aspects of the soul in harmony, with reason to guide and director of the passions and appetite. Lacking a concrete definition, justice would be the balance of the tripartite soul, with reason in control. Justice is a harmony between the tripartite soul in which reason guides the spirit and appetite. Justice is good in itself and good in its practical ends. Justice is educating desires, implementing the human faculty of reason. A just life leads to harmony, balance, and virtue. This is to what Plato ponders throughout the opening of The Republic and considers the great question amongst his peers. Bibliography: Word Count: 924
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.