An understanding of true justice is necessary to the ability of a government to be able to impose laws upon a populous and have those people willingly submit. In order to find the most correct version of justice, it is required to find what the origins of justice are. However, in searching for true justice (henceforth known as Justice) a summary of its’ attributes and reasons for each must be given. By examining how Socrates goes about finding the origin of Justice it will be clear what true justice (Justice) is and how this definition came about.
The examination of the origin of Justice will be found by examining the separate versions of it individually. The first explanation is put forth by Glaucon. He postulates that justice was created to prevent people from receiving injustice. The second argument is put forth by Socrates. His postulation is that justice is a Form and the forms contrive themselves from The Good (Perfection). Once the understanding of the origins of justice have been inspected then, the analysis of Justice can begin. The assessment will be in three stages for the three versions of justice put forth in the Republic.
The first explanation is put forth by Cephalus. He postulates that Justice is telling the truth and repaying one’s debts. The second is posed by Polemarchus and follows that justice is giving what each man deserves (i. e. good unto a just man and bad unto an unjust man). The third version is posed by Thrasymachus and he poses that justice is what is profitable to those in power. After examining each version of justice rigorously, this paper will postulate the truest version of the origin of justice, then go on to suggest what aspects of Justice are true, and why the misinformation of Man has catastrophic consequences upon himself.
Glaucon poses that the origin of justice is that people love doing injustice but hate receiving it. Thus laws and justice were created to find a medium balance between the two extremes. He feels so strongly about this that he states “People love it, not because it is a good thing, but because they are too weak to do injustice with impunity (37). ” He explains this through the use of a fable. A shepherd finds a ring that when twisted renders him invisible. He uses this ring to do many horrible things but ends up very well off.
Glaucon goes on to say that not only would every man do this given the chance but, if a man were to do this he would be ridiculed and jibed at. Thus Glaucon poses the origins of justice are for protection from injustice. This idea of injustice being the cause of Justice did not sit well with Socrates, so he creates a city with Glaucon. However, when building the city to examine the origin of justice, injustice only arose from those who coveted others items and luxury. There was no injustice prior to the creation of luxury.
Thus the people not satisfied by temperance are the people that cause injustice. This is further explained by Socrates’ simile of the line. Socrates divides the world up into a nine-part line and designates the first six parts to a realm the “visible” the other 3 are in the “intelligible (205). ” These parts are individually broken into pieces. Such that the line looks as follows: Socrates explains that the world is built upon the sun, grass plant and animals all need the sun to survive. The two subsections of the Visible realm are created in two classifications Images and Objects.
The Images are not as real as the Objects, and so the images are less important, yet they are easier to understand. Similarly, The Good is the sun and concepts and forms are the images and objects respectively. Exactly as in the visible realm in the intelligible the concepts are easier to understand than the forms. Socrates poses another way of explaining the line as a fable. People are placed in chains facing a wall in such a way as they cannot move their heads. A roadway passes in front of the mouth of the cave therefore these prisoners see shadows on a wall from the mouth of the ave. Since they cannot look around to see the truth that is behind them they take the shadows as reality. When one was finally compelled to standup free and forced into the sunlight he would begin to understand things in this order: first shadows on the ground, then the reflections of the objects in water and in mirrors, after that the objects themselves then finally after a long time he would be able to look directly into the sun. this explanation makes the simile of the line much more clear.
When first gaining knowledge the freedman is able to comprehend shadows and so on until he understands objects. Socrates puts forth the idea that this is where most people are content to stay, however some are willing to go further to understand concepts (i. e. math, logical reasoning, etc. ). Then finally comes the understanding of the forms and these are the perfection of virtues (i. e. Justice, Love, etc. ). This is from where the true origins of justice come from. Justice is a universal concept so man can only comprehend parts until he has acquired true wisdom.
The version of Justice presented within the simile of the line presented by Socrates is a much better version than the origin suggested by Glaucon. The version that Glaucon argues for has the inherent flaws of man as their nature and that injustice is something that is within man, whereas Socrates suggests that injustice comes from the greed of living an exorbitant lifestyle. This version makes much more sense and allows man to have created the flaw rather than have an inherent flaw within their souls. In understanding these parts of Justice arguments must be put forth and refuted.
The Republic has several arguments put into place. The first explanation is put forth by Cephalus. He postulates that Justice is telling the truth and repaying one’s debts. As noble as Cephalus’ version of justice is, it is incorrect for there are scenarios in which this version of justice would be inaccurate. For instance, perhaps a friend lent you his weapon, but when asking for it back he clearly has murderous intent. Giving him back his weapon would be unjust because he would do unjust actions and the fault would lay with the man who gave im his weapon back. Similarly, one might have to lie in order to prevent the friend from obtaining these weapons and this action would be just. So speaking truth and repaying debts is not Justice, however there may be a different meaning behind Cephalus’use of’repaying one’s debts’. Polemarchus believed so, he presented a version of justice in which a man does good to the just and wicked unto the unjust. The reason this is incorrect is because of the Just man. A just man will not do injustice to anyone.
Justice is not doing good unto just people, nor is it always speaking the truth, perhaps it is simply to do good. To follow laws as well as pursue The Good with the actions one commits. Were this to be the case and Man were to follow it. The overall living of each individual would be better and the city that is in existence that would have this version of justice would not have to worry about injustice because, with the pursuit of The Good comes Temperance and knowledge. I suggest that Justice is the pursuit of The Good and anything that furthers one’s understanding of The Good.
