Introduction
The element of justice entails the human virtue and bond that helps in enhancing unity in the society. According the Plato, the human virtue had a major role in restoring social and political wellbeing in the society. The argument on the issue of justice presents different philosophies relating to the outcome of engaging in justice. Different philosophers capitalized on the evaluation of the issue focusing on the just and unjust people in the society in a bid to determine whether they were happy or not following their actions. The evaluation of the issue by the philosophers focused on different aspects such as the nature of justice and the situations that required the implementation of justice in the society. Socrates, a Greek philosopher presented his arguments regarding the just and unjust person maintain that the consequences of justice are experienced by the individuals practicing the virtue. On the other hand, Glaucon and Adeimantus provided their arguments focusing on the key elements of justice in the society.
Socrates Argument
In the argument concerning justice, Socrates capitalized on addressing the question on “what is justice”, which is an aspect that helped in presenting the meaning of justice in the society. According to Payne (2016), justice focus on maintaining fairness without the biasness or favoritism, which is an aspect that helps in enhancing social wellbeing of individuals in the society. When addressing the question, Socrates focused on the political, social, and individual aspects that contribute to the issue maintaining that justice is an individual virtue that has the ability to influence different elements in the society. As part of the argument, Socrates address the question on whether a just person is happier than the unjust person. In the given question, Socrates presents the relationship between individual happiness and justice. The philosophical concerns in this case entails the personal virtues that lead towards engaging in just or unjust situations (Plato, 1991). The discussion on the philosophical concerns regarding justice and happiness focus on the theories of justice and the human view of happiness.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In his argument, Socrates maintained that the human soul has three major divisions that are connected to ensure that an individual is in a position to engage in the things that are deemed right. The parts of the human soul include the spirit, desire, and the reasoning part, which are responsible for making decisions regarding justice. Socrates argue that the just people tend to have high spirits that enhances that reasoning capability that influencing their desire to be just to others thus leading a happy life. However, the unjust tend to have low spirits that influence their ability to reason thus leading to decisions to engage in injustices. According to Socrates, an unjust individual tends to lack some virtues such as courage and wisdom thereby leading to the decisions of engaging in injustices.
In his argument, the justice relates to harmony considering that just people tend to have positive virtues that capitalizes on creating a harmonious environment. On the contrary, the unjust people tend to live in fear due to lack of the positive virtues thus being unhappy and unbalance in the life. In that case, Socrates presented the relationship between justice and happiness as key aspects that are interdependent. Considering that the element of justice focuses on good virtues, Socrates maintained that the justice entails doing good to those that deserve as opposed to those that are good. In this argument, Socrates refuted argument from philosophers that argued that going to friends and doing evil to the enemies is just. In this case, justice would not lead to happiness considering that it was not offered to those that deserve.
Glaucon and Adeimantus 's Argument
On the issue concerning justice in the society, Glaucon and Adeimantus presented his argument focusing on different elements that concern the just and unjust people in the society. In their argument, Glaucon and Adeimantus maintain that justice is a social contract that arises among individuals. In the argument concerning justice, the two philosophers refute the ideologies of Socrates citing different aspects that ought to have been left out in Socrates’ argument. Firstly, the philosophers divided the element of good things into three major parts that presented the aspect of just and unjust situations in the society. In their argument, the philosophers presented their defense on injustices capitalizing on the fact that justice results from a compromise, where weak individuals tend negotiate due to the fear of facing consequences of injustices in the society.
In the argument, the philosophers capitalized on the element of necessity as a factor that contribute to justice in the society. the argument maintained that the majority of people in the society tend to act justly owing to the consequences associated by being just. In that case, people become just not because of they ought to be but because it is necessary and unavoidable. According to Mill (2016), the philosophers mention that the reputation of justice ought to be better that the actual element justice considering that majority of people tend to be associate with justice without the consideration of other underlying factors. In that case, people tend to consider the consequences of injustices thereby opting to consider justice in fear of the said implications.
Lastly, the philosophers maintain that there is no ultimate relationship between justice and happiness considering that justice may be a process that involves a wide range of aspects in the society. In that case, the philosophers argued that the reputation of justice make a person happy and not necessary the immediate actions of justice or injustices. The argument maintains that an unjust person with a reputation of justice tend to be happier than a just person who has a reputation of injustices. Happiness in an individual’s life is not guaranteed by justice considering that there may be a reputation of injustices. Justice in this case is considered as an element that depends on individual’s actions towards other people in the society and the nature of consequences obtained from the given actions (Mancilla, 2017).
Analysis of Socrates Argument based on Glaucon and Adeimantus Argument
Considering the arguments presented by Socrates regarding the relationship between justice and happiness, Glaucon and Adeimantus presented refuting statements opposing the ideology that just people tend to be happy while the unjust tend to be unhappy despite the external factors. In that case, Socrates presented an argument supporting his ideology concerning happiness and justices basing on the elements mentioned in by Glaucon and Adeimantus. Firstly, Socrates defended justice as an element without the consideration of its reputation it presents to people. In this case, Socrates maintains that justice is a distinct aspect that should not be associated with the reputation it holds. In the defense, Socrates maintains that justice is a human virtue thereby the just and unjust people have the ability to make decision regardless of the external factors.
According to Levin (2018), Socrates maintains that human beings have their natural abilities to distinguish between good and evil, which is an aspect that enhances the ability to engage in justice. In that case, injustices cannot be fulfilling considering that a person conscience have the ability to discern evil deeds that are meant to demean other people. Socrates argues that justice provides happiness considering that it involves doing good to the deserving people despite the external factors. Although the arguments focused on the presentation of his ideology regarding the aspect of justice in the society, Socrates did not success in proving his argument based on the requirements of Glaucon and Adeimantus regarding the issue of justice in relation to happiness. The ideologies of the philosophers contradicted based on their individual viewpoint concerning the issue.
Conclusion
In conclusion, justice is a human virtue had a major role in restoring social and political wellbeing in the society. Different philosophers capitalized on the evaluation of the issue focusing on the just and unjust people in the society in a bid to determine whether they were happy or not following their actions. When addressing the question, Socrates focused on the political, social, and individual aspects that contribute to the issue maintaining that justice is an individual virtue that has the ability to influence different elements in the society. Glaucon and Adeimantus maintain that justice is a social contract that arises among individuals. The philosophers maintain that there is no ultimate relationship between justice and happiness considering that justice may be a process that involves a wide range of aspects in the society. However, the ideologies of the philosophers contradicted based on their individual viewpoint concerning the issue.
References
Levin, S. B. (2018). Poetic Justice: Rereading Plato's Republic by Jill Frank. Journal of the History of Philosophy , 56 (4), 748-749.
Mancilla, A. (2017). Theories of Justice . Routledge.
Mill, J. S. (2016). Utilitarianism. In Seven masterpieces of philosophy (pp. 337-383). Routledge.
Payne, A. (2016). Socrates the Same-Sayer. Logical Analysis & History of Philosophy / Philosophiegeschichte und Logische Analyse , 19 .
Plato, A. B. (1991). The republic of Plato . New York: Basic Books.
