Up until this point, I really haven't known what to say about Justice. Each time someone in The Republic introduced a definition, I believed it was accurate until Plato, or rather his character, Socrates, proved each person wrong. Reading Plato has forced me to think very carefully about how I would define the "justice". I really liked the intro in which injustice was described as a "natural good" (pg. 10) and justice got it's value, not from being "good-in-itself" as we like to think of it, but because "[people] are too weak to do injustice with impunity" (p.10). This went well with Thrasymachus definition that "Justice is the advantage of the strongest", and at first glance, it might even make one question whether he is right. The laws that govern us are created by officers above us, and while they got voted in, typically the people that run are those that can afford to have a campaign. Others have even pointed out presidential scandals where it seems like justice is in the favor of those ranked highest in our governmental system. I do not believe this is the case though. If it were so, then we would have no free will to think. We would blindly believe that all laws were good and just, which we know isn't the case. I am sure the Gay/Lesbian community does not see their inability to be married as a just law. It would also mean that no one would have taken a stand against Hitler who was in fact the ruler of Germany, and you certainly don't see the president making laws that give himself a bigger paycheck, like that given to baseball players, etc (I do know that he has perks though, like his own jet). All of this to say that, we each have an idea of what justice should be and it is more than just the creation of laws. We are autonomous moral agents and the government does not have the power to change that.
So how are we autonomous? We talk about the 3 parts of the soul in class and I noticed the similarity to Freud's original ideas that each person has an ID, EGO, and SUPEREGO. For those of you that are unfamiliar with this idea, we are born with an Id, desire, then acquire an ego, rational self, then superego-morals. Although we all have desires, and some desires, because of laws, we are unable to fulfill, but maybe that is for the best. I doubt that many people who say that would use Gyges' Ring actually would and even fewer probably believe in their hearts that it allowed them to achieve justice in their lives. Honestly, the only thing I would do with the ring is maybe to see what my "friends" say about me when I am not around. I believe that Freud's idea coupled with Bronfenbrenner's idea of a bioecological system gives a pretty good idea of how we acquire our own moral compass. Each person is an individual. We may go to the same school, but our home lives are different and our friends, our experiences that define and mold our opinions of life, shape us to be unique from all others. The beauty is the more people that are raised with good values-those people can end up in power and making laws and that new environment will shape others.
I agree with you when you disagreed with Thrasymachus' definition of justice, and that "justice is the advantage of the strongest." Yes those who are in office can make the laws but if the people they govern don't agree with them, we are free to protest and rebel, like we do here in America. Ultimately those in office are put there because we the people, voted for them. At first he does sound right because most of the time we don't agree with laws that are made and we assume those in office are corrupt. But like I mentioned before those who are in power are put there because we put them in there. So, Thrasymachus' definition of justice is wrong in my eyes and I disagree with it just as you have. Justice isn't always in favor of the most powerful or the strongest. Eventually what we see to be just makes its way into light and in favor by the people. (Like Gay/Lesbian community marriages).
ReplyDeleteThrasymachus' definition of justice is extreme, and I think he makes a great point, however I do not believe that taking advantage of anyone is necessarily just. If you look at how our government is run, yes, we have a balance of power and the people also have a hand with whom we put into power, as you pointed out. However, if you look at how governments are run at a global standpoint, there are major differences from country to country. Unlike us Americans, not all common people in other nations have the right to choose who they have in power and there are very unjust laws made by those in power that are corrupt, like you pointed out with your example of Hitler.
ReplyDeleteKylie,
DeleteHey, I just wanted to say that I really appreciated your input. I forgot to really think about the bigger picture of how governments function in other countries, and while I have Thrasymachus' definition never becomes the truth, unfortunately there are probably countries out there where his definition most honestly reflects their situations.