Justice or moral uprightness of human soul according to Plato - Essay Example

?Justice or Moral Uprightness of Human Rights Plato’s Republic is one of the foremost philosophical texts of the ancient world. While the text examines a broad array of philosophical issues, one of its primary considerations is the nature of morality. In the second book of the Republic, Glaucon argues that morality is only a socially constructed concept that individuals follow because it is to their advantage to do so. Conversely, Plato (through Socrates) makes the contention that justice and morality are not socially constructed entities, but instead exist objectively. In this instance, humans should adhere to justice and morality regardless of the consequences. This essay considers these points in relation to the Republic and presents my own position on the debate. From the very opening of the Republic Plato sets about establishing the notion of justice and considering why it should be followed. One of the first aspects that are addressed in terms of justice concerns its very nature. In Book I Cephalus argues that justice constitutes following the laws and legal regulations that are established. Socrates refutes this claim arguing instead that while it would be legal to supply a madman with a weapon that you had taken from him, it would not be morally just as this could cause problems. A series of arguments regarding the nature of justice then occur, wherein an individual raises a socially constructed aspect of justice that is then refuted by Socrates in various ways. For instance, Thrasymachus argues that justice doesn’t exist, but is merely the demonstration of the stronger person or entity’s will. When considering these notions of justice it’s clear how it’s possible to understand how both subjective and objective visions of justice exist. When considering justice within this context, one considers that there are aspects of justice that are both subjective and objective. In many regards, it appears that Socrates resorts to mystical thinking processes to establish the nature of justice as an absolute reality. A more accurate concept of justice seemingly would acknowledge that oftentimes concepts of justice differ between societies. For instance, in some cultures specific drug use or other similar actions are legalized. Is it then appropriate to say that justice is wrong in one culture and right in another? Even if one were to indicate as much, it’s clear that the individuals in the society embrace their concept of justice. In these regards, it appears that in large part Socrates does not go far enough in considering the culturally conditioned aspects of justice, such as religion, or other socially constructed elements. In Book II of the Republic the consideration of justice is continued. At the beginning of this chapter justice is presented as a socially constructed aspect of society that must exist because of human wrongdoings. One notes that this understanding is contrary to Socrates previous presentation of justice as it reflects an understanding of justice that is only followed because it is advantageous for humans to do so. Within this mode of understanding, Glaucon proposes a story of a ring. He states, Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other;,no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison (Plato). In this scenario the ring would allow the individual to avoid punishment for being unjust. While Socrates later makes efforts to refute this theory, in large part one notes that a significant segment of society understands justice within this form of social contract. One also considers the earlier argument that justice is in large-part determined by the dominant party. In light of the current democratic structure of contemporary society and the means of establishing justice through majority opinion, one notes that Glaucon’s version of justice is more in-line with contemporary conceptions than Socrates’. As Plato continues the Republic more theories regarding justice and morality are advanced. While previous investigations had examined the nature of justice, this portion of the Republic more thoroughly examines the nature of morality. Plato (through Socrates) then goes on to detail the type of city that would embody just and moral ends. In these regards, the nature of justice and morality is acknowledged to be somewhat embodied by society, or a socially constructed reality. While Socrates had previously refuted Cephalus’ and Glaucon’s concepts of justice, the presentation of justice here is in some regards influenced by their presentations of the concept. In a sense, Plato’s city comes to represent the governmental articulation of these earlier concepts of justice. For Socrates then justice is not simply a set of actions, but an aspect of society that takes hold throughout the entire nation of government structure. Socrates then goes on to present a vision of justice that considers the nature of the individual’s soul. He breaks the city down into parts that will then correspond to these aspects of the individual’s deeper motivation. Ultimately, this is a presentation of political and individual justice. While Socrates concept of political and individual justice at times makes sense, there are a number of aspects of it that one can take issue with. In terms of individual justice Socrates assumes that individuals with a ‘healthy’ soul with tend towards following these standards of justice. Similarly, in terms of political justice, Socrates assumes that if society is structured in the proper way then humanity will act in just and moral ways. In large part this concepts of justice seem overly optimistic and idealized. While Cephalus and Glaucon proposed earlier versions of justice that considered the current state of government and human motivation, Socrates has argued that they were mistaken since justice is innate to human beings. In these regards, it appears that rather than acknowledge the nature of justice as oftentimes arbitrary; Socrates has invented an idealized vision of a city that exactly corresponds to the nature of justice. Individuals that fall outside of this vision of justice then automatically have unhealthy souls. A more realistic understanding of justice then seems to be a hybrid structure of Cephalus and Glaucon’s theories of justice, with Socrates’ theory. In these regards, justice and morality must be recognized to be in-large part socially maintained and structured aspects of existence. While on an individual level it’s possible to see that most people would be willing to act in unjust ways if it benefitted them. When one considers the nature of affirmative action and the need for the Civil Rights Movement, one sees contemporary incarnations of these aspects of human motivation pervade all levels of human society. Even so social consciousness remains prevalent among many groups of people and benefactors. While Socrates argues this is the main structure of the human soul, in reality it appears to be the exception. Ultimately, it’s clear that a concept of justice related to being fair to all people in the society must be developed and it must take into consideration the unjust nature of human motivation. In conclusion, this essay has considered the nature of justice and morality in response to the understanding presented by Plato in the Republic. While Plato argues that humans follow justice because it is innate to their being, others argue that justice is socially constructed and only followed because it benefits the individual to do so. This essay has argued that justice is both a socially constructed reality and an in part an element of human desire. References Plato. The Republic. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html Read More