The Concept of Justice

Socrates and Aristotle some(prenominal) perplex contrasting views of the concept of yetice which serves to influence their nonions of an ideal constitution. The abstract, speculative ideas of Socrates bequeath be compared and contrasted with the practical, sensory whizs of Aristotle in matters concerning evaluator and politics. Both Aristotle and Socrates disagree with regards to the exposition of safeice and what qualities are attri excepted to a just mortal. According to Aristotle, a just some mavin must(prenominal) follow the law and refrain from greed. In the mentation of Socrates, greed consists of taking more than what is required to survive.He stresses the importance of delicacy and temperance in the resilients of a just soulfulness. Aristotle, however, states that a greedy person is some genius who does not understand the difference between taking what is sizable and what is not approximate. A besotted person washbowl also be just. Aristotle provides t wo polar types of evaluator which he labels distributive and rectifactory justice. Distributive justice is concerned with the distribution of money, honour, and other resources amongst those who have a share in public organization. Equality is of the greatest importance when distributing sounds.Rectifactory justice concerns transactions between individuals in which both p artistic creationies mutually exchange skillfuls or services. Through both of these means Aristotle seeks to provide justice in the written law of his polis which is apply to the advantage of all. However, Socrates views justice as the harmonious parts of the person or of a city. A just valet de chambre, therefore, is in just the right jell and doing his best to perform his fail. He claims that the function of a human macrocosm is deliberation, ruling, living, and taking care of things.The ideas of Aristotle differ greatly from this perspective. He states that the human function is to perform activities th at express designer. Socrates views his ideal city in which any person performs his or her function. His views pertain to the intimacy in which a person lives go Aristotles views are more individualistic as someone who expresses reason in his logic can do so without other mint or his community. In the Republic, Socrates attempts to illustrate his views with the parable of the ship.The below the belt city is deal an open ocean crewed by a powerful but intoxicated captain (re attesting the ignorant rough-cut tidy sum), a conference of untrustworthy advisors (politicians), and a navigator (the philosopher). The solo way the ship will r for each one its destination, the good, is if the navigator arrive ats charge. Philosophers, who are lovers of comprehension, should convening because they understand what is good and just. It is also the opinion of Socrates that wad who have been the victims of blemish are more likely to become unsportsmanlike themselves.He disagrees with the notion that returning debts owed, helping friends, and harming enemies are not able reasons for doing evil So if someone tells us it is just to give to each what he is owed and understands by this that a just man should harm his enemies and public assistance his friends, the one who says it is not wise. I mean, what he says is not true. For it has become guide to us that it is never just to harm eachone (Plato, Republic, 335e). A wise person would understand that it is not beneficial to his soul to do injustice only to his enemies.A wise person, according to Socrates would never harm anyone. He maintains that a kind just ruler judges what is best for his people and holds their interests in greater esteem than his friends or family No one in any position of rule considers or enjoins what is advantageous for himself, but what is advantageous for his subjects (Plato, Republic, 342e). A ruler who performs acts of injustice is, by nature, more prone to corruption and tyra nny. In this way he gives increased support to his argument concerning philosophers as rulers of the polis.Socrates and Aristotle also differ in their opinions as to which form of controlment is best to rule the polis. Socrates defends the notion that the city would best be governed by the philosopher-kings a group of people who had endured rigorous mental and physical training for the majority of their lives. They would govern in concert as a group or an oligarchy. Aristotle recognizes the fact that it is manageable for an oligarchy to degenerate into a tyranny, which is the worst possible state. He recommends the formation of a polity or a democracy as the lesser of two evils.Socrates draws a fine line between ignorance and wisdom. It is, in fact, recognizing what one does not know from what one knows. Therefore, if one cannot recognize the lawfulness of justice, one must be said to be ignorant if justice is indeed wisdom and rectitude, it will be easy to show, I suppose, tha t it is stronger than injustice, since injustice is ignorance (Plato, Republic, 351a). Wisdom is doubtlessly the more esteemed when compared with ignorance and consequently justice must be rectify esteemed than injustice. However, Socrates is confronted with arguments in favour of injustice.He attempts to defend justice as being more profitable than injustice that to do injustice is of course good and to suffer injustice bad The best is to do injustice without paying the penalty the worst is to suffer it without taking revenge (Plato, Republic, 358e). In other words, it is acceptable and encouraged for someone to perform acts of injustice as long as he is not found out and does not suffer the consequences. If however, an act of injustice is carried out against someone, it is the duty of the victim to take revenge on him.Socrates points out that this course of action leads only to unsatisfying material gain. Thrasymachus claims that committing acts of injustice without being caug ht is more profitable to ones reputation and would allow one to achieve more. Socrates acknowledges that although a person piquant in injustice will most likely become wealthy in physical attributes, he lacks the fundamental sexual abstentions and characteristics of a good man. The truth of something is the state or position that cast offs it good. For instance, the virtue of a man may include his intelligence, courage, or sense of justice.Justice, in this case, is a moral doings which is said to belong to virtuous people. Therefore, justice itself is a virtue. Thrasymachus argument has no merit because a man who strives to achieve more by getting material wealth through committing acts of injustice lacks the more esteemed virtues of wisdom and justice. It is also the opinion of Socrates that just people are happier and live break away lives than raw ones. He is, of course, talking about the happiness of the soul sort of than its shell, the body. Much as the virtue of the eyes is to see and the virtue of the ears to hear, the virtue of the soul is justice ustice is a souls virtue and justice its vice (Plato, Republic, 353e).It is more profitable for a person to be just than unjust, as he will be giving his soul its virtue and therefore living a blessed life. Better is the poor man with a good just soul than the rich man who has do his wealth through vice with a tainted soul. However, it must be pointed out that although Socrates claims that justice leads to happiness, he deprives the rulers of his city of happiness, though they are sibylline to be trained in justice and wisdom. As Aristotle states ven though Socrates deprives the guardians of their happiness, he says that the legislator should make the whole city-state happy.But it is impossible for the whole to be happy unless all, most, are some of its parts are happy (Aristotle, Politics, 1264b). Socrates thought it was pivotal that the guardians were not given the sort of happiness which w ould no longer make them guardians. For a potter who is given jewels and riches no longer practices the art of pottery and so is no longer considered a potter. Likewise, a guardian must not be given wealth or mundane comforts but remain content with his role.Aristotle argues that even if the guardian build is not happy, it is impossible for the craftsmen, farmers, and lower classes to be happy. Without happiness, there is no justice. Socrates also claims that just people are able to take a shit together in order to achieve a common goal. He maintains that just people working together are able to get along without doing injustice amongst themselves just people are wiser and better and more capable of acting, piece unjust ones are not even able to act together (Plato, Republic, 352c).Injustice causes factions, hatreds, and quarrels among people and friends. A band of robbers with a common unjust purpose would not be able to achieve it if they are unjust amongst themselves. Injust ice provides conditions in which it is impossible for people to work together. Therefore, injustice prevents the different parts of the soul from working together toward a common goal. In the case of friendly relationship and justice, Socrates and Aristotle seem to be in mutual accord. Aristotle believes friendship and comradeship to be one of the key components of leading a good life.He viewed justice as the equitability or fairness in social relations. Virtuous habits can be acquired within a moral community which ultimately leads to a virtuous and moral life. Socrates believes that the nature of the state is uniform with the nature of the individual and the nature of the soul. The soul comprises of three key principles which he refers reason, appetite, and spirit. Justice in the individual is harmony among the principles of the soul achieved by rationality and reason.He believes that the guardians have achieved harmony within their souls and so must be considered just. Since the faculties of an individual correspond on a smaller scale to that of the state, justice must also exist in the individual. Socrates believes in unity, as show by his confidence in the ability of just people to work together and of the family structure in the Republic. Women and children are to be shared communally by the guardians. No one woman, child, or possession is to belong to one man but or else to be shared by the whole.The well-being of the polis is placed before the well-being of an individual. Aristotle agrees that unity needs to be present to a certain extent within a city but alleges that a man who can call something his own takes more overcharge in it. He loves a son he can call his own more than a boy who is a son of every man. He also takes more pride in his work when he knows that what he is producing will benefit himself and his family. Socrates claims that temperance is the path to happiness and virtue and a person should only own what he needs to live tempe rately.Aristotle disagrees with this notion and states that it is possible to live temperately and wretchedly the lack of property does not necessarily lead to a good life. A good person can be good even independently of the society. However, a good person is a good citizen and a good citizen can exist only as a part of the social structure. In this way, the state is, in a sense, prior to the citizen. It is evident Socrates and Aristotle share the common belief that justice is undoubtedly more beneficial than injustice. However, their definitions of justice substitute greatly.The main and most crucial difference between the perspectives of Aristotle and Socrates is their view of friendship and unity. Aristotle believes that the virtue of justice encompasses all other virtues because it treats the interactions between people rather than just the dispositions of the individual. Socrates believes that the virtue of justice is first and foremost beneficial to ones soul. Despite their c ontrasting views, both Aristotle and Socrates believe that justice is one of the highest and most sought after virtues. If one is to have a good life, one must be just.