Socratic Discussion of Justice

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

I'm making this topic for two reasons: to take my mind off my work while still improving my philosophical facilities, and to try to bring more intelligent thought to this forum.

 

          We'll start by discussing Socrates' definition of justice which is outlined in Plato's Rebublic. Justice is first brought up when Cephalus remarks that death makes one think on the injustices one has suffered or inflicted. Socrates then says, "But to this very thing justice, shall we so simply assert that it is the truth and giving back what a man has taken from another, or is to do these things sometimes just and sometimes unjust?" (Republic, 331b) At this point, Cephalus' son, Polemarchus, takes over the conversation for his father, and asserts that Simonides the poet's definition of justice right: justice is to give to each what is owed; that is, to do good to one's friends and harm to one's enemies.

 

          Here I will open the topic for discussion. What do you think of Socrates' question? Of Polemarchus' response? Is justice really that mechanical? Please use the book and quote frequently to support your arguments. We will try to move this discussion in the direction of that in the book. Let us do this in an ordered and coherent fashion, respecting other people's opinions, which is not to say you can't disagree with them.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Imgoingtowreckyou

[Meliora 1,652]

Guessing you paid lots of attention in English...

[Irontank1v 836]

Moved to Off-Topic section.

[GoldRock 6,165]

Please use the book and quote frequently to support your argument. We will try to move this discussion in the direction of the that in the book.

Sorry, the vast majority of us haven't read the book.

 

Well, I'd say that Socrates' question is a well-phrased one, though Polemarchus' response is not one I agree with. How do we know what is owed to our friends and enemies (ie what they deserve)? Maybe we haven't seen the full picture in such circumstances? Also, who or what is assumed to be able to administer/control acts of justice - man or God? For if it is God, though I don't think so as the style of writing doesn't seem to be religiously inclined and God isn't mentioned, that renders my first two questions void. Sorry if I've misunderstood, or if I'm taking this in the wrong direction - I've never read the book, so I just want to discover more about the context of this (ie clear up whether God is involved) before delving more deeply into why I think Polemarchus is wrong.

Edited September 17, 2013 by GoldRock

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

Socrates lived around 500 years before Christ and the Greeks were pretty well removed from the influence of the Hebrews, so no, I do not believe Socrates spoke of God (though many critics have speculated that he was the first to "prove" God; not that I think God can, or more importantly, should, be proven, but there it is). 

 

I definitely agree with you on the counterpoint that circumstances merit a review, that is, one that we think is our enemy, is possibly not, and one we think our friend, could possibly in reality be our enemy. Also, Socrates points out in 334e that the ones most skilled at certain things, (i.e., the doctor at healing, the lawer at enforcing the law, etc.) are necessarily the ones who are also most skilled at doing harm in that field. Therefore, the one most skilled at doing justice is necessarily also the one most skilled at doing injustice. Furthermore, just as a doctor is useless to a man that is in full health, so justice is useless in the usefulness of things, and useful in things' uselessness. Or is it? To confine justice to these parameters would be to say that it is a useless thing, and morally, we know that justice is a good and wholesome thing (333c).

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, that's no problem that you haven't read it, but it's a fantastic book, and while it often baffles me, I find it endlessly interesting and thought-provoking. I'm not likening it to the Bible in any sense, but it is a good book.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Imgoingtowreckyou

[alexomig 9]

Around 75% of the players are still kids and dont understand a .... of what you say.

[GoldRock 6,165]

^I'm a kid, technically...

 

Socrates lived around 500 years before, Christ, and the Greeks were pretty well removed from the influence of the Hebrews, so no, I do not believe Socrates spoke of God (though many critics have speculated that he was the first to "prove" God; not that I think God can, or more importantly, should, be proved, but there it is).

 

I definitely agree with you on the counterpoint that circumstances merit a review, that is, one that we think is our enemy, is possibly not, and one we think our friend, could possibly in reality be our enemy. Also, Socrates points out in 334e that the ones most skilled at certain things, (i.e., the doctor at healing, the lawer at enforcing the law, etc.) are necessarily the ones who are also most skilled at doing harm in that field. Therefore, the one most skilled at doing justice is necessarily also the one most skilled at doing injustice. Furthermore, just as a doctor is useless to a man that is in full health, so justice is useless in the usefulness of things, and useful in things' uselessness. Or is it? To confine justice to these parameters would be to say that it is a useless thing, and morally, we know that justice is a good and wholesome thing (333c).

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, that's no problem that you haven't read it, but it's a fantastic book, and while it often baffles me, I find it endlessly interesting and thought-provoking. I'm not likening it to the Bible in any sense, but it is a good book.

I'll try to read it sometime, sounds interesting ^_^

 

Well, drawing a parallel from the doctor scenario, the man in full health may represent one that has never committed any injustices. Technically, neither of these things are possible - no man would be absolutely perfect in terms of health (though he might be in very good health), just as no man would have never committed any injustices (though he might have committed very few injustices). The imperfections of man would be mentioned in this book, right? Anyway, following that line of thought, we can assume that for a man who has committed few injustices, little justice against him is needed. However, justice is still used/needed. In this sense, I disagree that justice can be useless - it is always useful, as man always commits injustices, though at varying degrees, depending on an individual.

 

 

Maybe this sort of thing is better suited to another forum? Because I doubt many other players here would be brave enough to delve into this discussion. I had to read the original post several times before I could absorb it fully, for example ^_^

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

Very good, sir. Or should I say, well put, you demonic man! (Demonic comes from the greek for divine. The Greeks believed the demon was just a lower class of angel.) Man is indeed unjust by nature, and if justice is the remedying of injustice, then justice is not useless. But we digress. What is justice? To put it another way, what is the essence of justice? Is it an art, as is medicine? For if, in doing justice by remedying injustice, we practice justice, just as a doctor, in doing justice by remedying sickness practices medicine; if in doing that, we practice justice, should we then say that justice is an art? And if so, is there a man of justice, as there is a man of medicine? Or what shall we say on this matter?

Edited September 19, 2013 by Imgoingtowreckyou

[GoldRock 6,165]

Very good, sir. Or should I say, well put, you demonic man! (Demonic comes from the greek for divine. The Greeks believed the demon was just a lower class of angel.) Man is indeed unjust by nature, and if justice is the remedying of injustice, then justice is not useless. But we digress. What is justice? To put it another way, what is the essence of justice? Is it an art, as is medicine? For if, in doing justice by remedying injustice, we practice justice, just as a doctor, in doing justice by remedying sickness practices medicine; if in doing that, we practice justice, should we then say that justice is an art? And if so, is there a man of justice, as there is a man of medicine? Or what shall we say on this matter?

Hmm... I don't think that justice should be described as an art. Having said that, you could draw another parallel - it could be argued that there are people who practice justice through their jobs, e.g. those involved with law, the police. However, both of these services have been known to have made mistakes in dealing justice. So, we can argue that humanity's idea of justice will always be flawed - since those who deal justice will have also dealt injustices to some degree themselves, we can argue that our idea of justice will never be the same as perfect justice in an ideal world. So, our view of justice can at least be decribed as imperfect, no? As for defining justice itself, that'll take a little more discussion, I think... Since justice on Earth could be considered flawed, would we describe it as more vague and opinion-based, rather than an art with rules and guidelines?

Edited September 19, 2013 by GoldRock

[I.Devastation 2,053]

Whaaaat.. Whats up with all the stuff that looks like my copy and paste homework?

[GoldRock 6,165]

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a lot more advanced than your homework :P

 

Whaaaat.. Whats up with all the stuff that looks like my copy and paste homework?

Shhh, unintelligent youngling (though we are a similar age) :lol:

Edited September 19, 2013 by GoldRock

[Remaine 4,687]

Shhh, unintelligent youngling (though we are a similar age) :lol:

somehow

[I.Devastation 2,053]

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a lot more advanced than your homework :P

 

 

Shhh, unintelligent youngling (though we are a similar age) :lol:

No, I lie :3

Im under 11

[Remaine 4,687]

No, I lie :3

Im under 11

makes more sense

[alexomig 9]

Flae is only 9...

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

Hmm... I don't think that justice should be described as an art. Having said that, you could draw another parallel - it could be argued that there are people who practice justice through their jobs, e.g. those involved with law, the police. However, both of these services have been known to have made mistakes in dealing justice. So, we can argue that humanity's idea of justice will always be flawed - since those who deal justice will have also dealt injustices to some degree themselves, we can argue that our idea of justice will never be the same as perfect justice in an ideal world. So, our view of justice can at least be decribed as imperfect, no? As for defining justice itself, that'll take a little more discussion, I think... Since justice on Earth could be considered flawed, would we describe it as more vague and opinion-based, rather than an art with rules and guidelines?

 

Here you divine something important: justice is not the doing of one man, but of many. Is then the doing of justice by many men considered the justice? That is, is justice a cumulative work? And as to what you say that our idea of justice is flawed, does this fact that our idea is flawed make justice flawed? Or perhaps justice is that which is perfect and cannot be flawed, and it is only our incapacity to perform true justice that makes our idea flawed. To put it another way, we as humans do not have the capacity to have righteous anger because we are sinful. God, however, is perfect, and has that capacity (i.e., the temple episode). Therefore, we must say that true anger is a perfect thing; that which is righteous and good, but it is our incapacity to have perfection in an imperfect body that is what prevents us from doing so. So it is with justice.

[GoldRock 6,165]

No, I lie :3

Im under 11

Ah, right :P

 

Here you divine something important: justice is not the doing of one man, but of many. Is then the doing of justice by many men considered the justice? That is, is justice a cumulative work? And as to what you say that our idea of justice is flawed, does this fact that our idea is flawed make justice flawed? Or perhaps justice is that which is perfect and cannot be flawed, and it is only our incapacity to perform true justice that makes our idea flawed. To put it another way, we as humans do not have the capacity to have righteous anger because we are sinful. God, however, is perfect, and has that capacity (i.e., the temple episode). Therefore, we must say that true anger is a perfect thing; that which is righteous and good, but it is our incapacity to have perfection in an imperfect body that is what prevents us from doing so. So it is with justice.

Justice could be cumulative, undertaken by one or by many. However, I think that even the many might get it wrong sometimes - an innocent man might be framed for murder, deemed guilty by a large jury, and wrongly suffer from their mistaken justice. It is possible that justice performed by the many is more accurate, that is to say it's closer to the concept of true justice, though it would never be perfect.

 

Yes, I was actually hinting at God being said to have the capacity to undertake perfect justice, there - great minds think alike, that was exactly what I was planning to phrase myself ;) However, since I'm an agnostic-atheist, I'll follow the other argument (which I would be more likely to agree with) - that our idea of justice makes justice itself flawed. Not considering God, the only definition we have of justice is one we have created ourselves, and so ultimately, it could be argued that justice is a flawed concept as it is based solely on the opinions of an imperfect mankind. Therefore, it could be stated that there is no such thing as true justice; though many people would find this explanation depressing, I would find this more realistic as an explanation ^_^

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

But if justice is an idea we have created ourselves, we cannot say it is flawed without saying that we are flawed. That is, just as it is impossible for a dog to beget a cat, or an elephant a fish, so it is impossible for a certain nature to conceive something different. If that nature is flawed, it will conceive flawed things; if it is perfect, then perfect things. So in saying that justice is flawed, and we ourselves have conceived of justice outside of God, then we must also be flawed. But how did we become so?

[GoldRock 6,165]

But if justice is an idea we have created ourselves, we cannot say it is flawed without saying that we are flawed. That is, just as it is impossible for a dog to beget a cat, or an elephant a fish, so it is impossible for a certain nature to conceive something different. If that nature is flawed, it will conceive flawed things; if it is perfect, then perfect things. So in saying that justice is flawed, and we ourselves have conceived of justice outside of God, then we must also be flawed. But how did we become so?

I agree that this is the case entirely. Hmm, you raise a fair question. However, I think it would be better phrased as "Why are we flawed?", rather than "Why did we become flawed?". This is because the latter suggests that there was a time when we were perfect, though only some religious texts such as the Bible advocate this to be true. Therefore, the first question would avoid raising this debatable point. Now, without flaws, we wouldn't be human, some argue. Therefore, we could simply assume that we are flawed due to inherent nature - that is what we are as humans. There are many religious explanations as to why we may have become flawed (if we were to try to answer the second question), having once been perfect, but they are simply theories, or allegorical stories.

Edited September 19, 2013 by GoldRock

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

Some say we wouldn't be human without flaws--that is just stating the obvious, because we know we're flawed, and something cannot exist if it is not itself. But, you would ask, how do we know we're flawed? That is, if we do not know our nature is flawed, we could not say it is inherently so. To be flawed is to lack good. It is an absence of the good. Justice, though, is not an absence of the good. If it were, it would not exist.

Let us say justice is an ideal; a good ideal. Now, if it is truly a good ideal, it cannot be corrupted. Necessarily, then, it cannot have been conceived by something corrupt; else it would be corrupt and would not as such exist (it not being itself). So, justice must have either been conceived by something perfect, or it must not exist. For we, in our nature, cannot conceive of perfect things, and perfect things cannot just 'exist'; if they did, we would not know them. How, then, was justice conceived? How, also, do we in our imperfect state, know of justice?

[Irontank1v 836]

Was not expecting this topic to go on Page 2. Good job guys (I didn't understood anything here)

[GoldRock 6,165]

^Thanks, though this has been a two-man conversation so far :lol:

 

...that is just stating the obvious, because we know we're flawed...

 

...if we do not know our nature is flawed, we could not say it is inherently so.

I sense a difference of opinions starting to arise here :P

 

The two statements above seem to contradict each other. We have both agreed that we know we are flawed, yet there is still a possibility this knowledge in itself is wrong. Either way, there are two options:

 

We know we are flawed --> we are correct --> we are flawed

 

We know we are flawed --> we are incorrect --> our knowledge is flawed --> we are flawed anyway

 

Therefore, to suggest we are incorrect in knowing that we are flawed would be to suggest that we are flawed in that knowledge. Paradoxical, eh?

 

To conclude, we are most definitely flawed, however you look at it.

 

To be flawed is to lack good. It is an absence of the good. Justice, though, is not an absence of the good. If it were, it would not exist.

Let us say justice is an ideal; a good ideal. Now, if it is truly a good ideal, it cannot be corrupted. Necessarily, then, it cannot have been conceived by something corrupt; else it would be corrupt and would not as such exist (it not being itself). So, justice must have either been conceived by something perfect, or it must not exist. For we, in our nature, cannot conceive of perfect things, and perfect things cannot just 'exist'; if they did, we would not know them. How, then, was justice conceived? How, also, do we in our imperfect state, know of justice?

I agree that justice is a good ideal. I also agree that good ideals are not corrupted. However, it is not the ideal of justice which should be considered (this is something which is beyond our full understanding as flawed humans), it is justice in practice that we ought to look at. Justice in practice will never be able to be the same as the perfect ideal of justice, as we simply don't have the capacity to understand this concept fully and so apply it in the world around us. Therefore, we as humans only ever know part of this truth, which is why the way in which we apply the perfect ideal of justice is imperfect; true justice is beyond our understanding. So, as men, we have only conceived and understood a flawed version of justice.

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

I was making a statement based on your previous assertion, then questioning it. Perhaps I did not pose it in the right way. What I meant to say is, how are we flawed? What are the criteria for knowing? We cannot simply assert that we are so by nature, because then we would be saying we are flawed because we believe we are flawed. If we really are flawed, then our beliefs will be flawed, which means we cannot trust them. If this was so, we must either be perfect, or know we are flawed because of a higher authority.

[HichigoShiro1 97]

wat

[TheLonelyEpic 212]

I believe this is a troll. Well done Goldy for actually figuring out what was happening here.