• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Briefly outline Plato's definition of justice and morality and compare it to Thrasymachus and conventional ideas of this concept.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Briefly outline Plato's definition of justice and morality and compare it to Thrasymachus and conventional ideas of this concept. Plato's definition of justice in society is when everyone is doing their own tasks, mind own business to witch they are naturally suited to, when injustice is person's trying to do others job. He is explaining how exactly society is structured and how people could now what their best place and job in society is in his "magnificent myth". Basic idea is that people born with bronze, silver or gold in their soul and each of them defines wether this person is a producer, auxiliary or ruler. ...read more.

Middle

So, if the reason should be in control it is not justice if one of the other parts of soul tries to do reason's job and starts controlling person's life. For Plato justice obviously is a good thing, when in Trasymachus theory justice is for the naive people who are controlled by the stronger, who are manipulated. Trasymachus is saying, that justice is in the interest of a stronger party, meaning that what is right and what is wrong is established by ruling elite and for everyone following these laws are namely in this ruler class benefits. ...read more.

Conclusion

He had an idea that we need to live up to ours legal obligations and be honest. For example we need to give the man his due, treat friends and enemies differently. Plato had presented some objections to this view, such as returning weapon to a madman, however I thing some of the ideas of conventional morality are working within his own definition of this concept - "live up to yours legal obligations" sound very similar to "mind your own business", the only differences are that Plato presents more complex ideas of how this all works together and also he explaines separately what is justice of society and what is justice of an individual. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Practical Questions section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Practical Questions essays

  1. Essay on Law vs. Justice

    codify all ethical requirements; 2.) An individual or a group may perceive a given law as immoral, not as a guide to ethical behavior In today's world it is all too prevalent to see more and more people hungry to gain success at an ever-increasing rate.

  2. Religion and Morality

    is imprisoned for allowing a teddy to be named after the prophet Muhammad. If not for religion, these arguably ridiculous acts would never be justifiable. Hume said on the subject, 'the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.

  1. "Humanitarian intervention, which is ruled out by realism and the morality of states, can ...

    If there are no universally acceptable moral standards, no moral standards can be applied across the globe. It is very difficult to decipher whether or not humanitarian intervention is in conflict with the doctrine of cultural relativism. If one supposes that humanitarian intervention is justified in one instance, for example

  2. Modern life-prolonging technologies have sharpened some ancient dilemmas on the value of life.

    One focuses on the coherence of valuing life per se with ultimity and equality. The other focuses on the consequences for people, practice, and policy of doing so. Note that non-consequentialist versions of SL are still vulnerable to the first family of objections, and that consequentialist versions are vulnerable to both.

  1. Self-interest plays no part in genuine morality

    The first is I see that someone has water and I can just tell him that I am thirsty and take his water. The other possibility is, telling him to bring me water. This is how we should not treat others.

  2. "It is impossible to reconcile any kind of determinism with the concept of freewill." ...

    Rationally we recognise that there are things which human beings can influence for good or bad even though they cannot control certain circumstances. Hard determinists are the people who are most likely to agree with the statement "It is impossible to reconcile any kind of determinism with the concept of freewill."

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work