Platonic justice and a humble try at its refutation

[eyespewgreekfire]

Using Plato's "The Republic" as a template of argument, I would like to show a theory of justic and its effects on human nature.

In the introduction debate in The Republic, Thrasymachus says that justice is "the interest of the stronger," and goes on to say that justice is therefore used as a concept of those in power to use for taking advantage of those not in power. However, the fist idea, that of Polemarchus, presents the hypothesis that justice is giving to people what they are due. Who is best able to deal with health? a doctor. Who is best able to deal with navigation? a sailor. Who is best able to deal with justice? A warrior, according to Polemarchus, since he gives his enemies what is due (war) and his friends what they are due. (aid) However, one does not need a physician when health is not a concern or a sailor when one plans to stay on land, so therefore this would imply that justice is useless during peace, which is most certainly false. Also, because this implies that it is good to harm your enemies, and if they think in the same manner, violence will grow and war will result, so therefore this hypothesis that justice is giving people what they give to you is erroneous.

After this, at that time, conventional hypothesis is shown wrong, Thrasymachus presents his cynical hypothesis of justice as the interest of the stronger. He says that each city’s government, because they have the power, enacts laws in their interest and says they are just. A tyrant will make tyrannical laws; a democracy will make democratic laws, and so on. Then, each person that breaks the law is a “wrongdoer” because they disagree with the people with the power. Therefore obedience to the ruling power is right or just, and if the state becomes evil, then justice is a bad thing. Therefore justice is irrelevant to making a good decision. To refute this, Socrates offers that Thrasymachus says that obeying the ruler is right, since it is just, yet at the same time, if the ruler acts injustly by disrespecting another large power, a subject will be both just and unjust by obeying him, since he agrees to the interest of one stronger power yet fights against another.

To support his claim of the definition of justice, Socrates offers the following analogy (paraphrased of course):
Suppose that there is a group of human beings who have lived their entire lives trapped in a subterranean chamber lit by a large fire behind them. Chained in place, these cave-dwellers can see nothing but shadows (of their own bodies and of other things) projected on a flat wall in front of them. Some of these people will be content to do no more than notice the play of light and shadow, while the more clever among them will become highly skilled observers of the patterns that most regularly occur. In both cases, however, they cannot truly comprehend what they see, since they are prevented from grasping its true source and nature.
Now suppose that one of these human beings manages to break the chains, climb through the torturous passage to the surface, and escape the cave. With eyes accustomed only to the dim light of the former habitation, this individual will at first be blinded by the brightness of the surface world, able to look only upon the shadows and reflections of the real world. But after some time and effort, the former cave-dweller will become able to appreciate the full variety of the newly-discovered world, looking at trees, mountains, and (eventually) the sun itself.
Finally, suppose that this escapee returns to the cave, trying to persuade its inhabitants that there is another, better, more real world than the one in which they have so long been content to dwell. They are unlikely to be impressed by the pleas of this extraordinary individual, Plato noted, especially since their former companion, having travelled to the bright surface world, is now inept and clumsy in the dim realm of the cave. Nevertheless, it would have been in the best interest of these residents of the cave to entrust their lives to the one enlightened member of their company, whose acquaintance with other things is a unique qualification for genuine knowledge.
Therefore, Socrates implies that justice is in a way the same thing as knowldege. However, I offer that there are many examples of those who understad knowledge yet act in an unjust manner. Hitler’s general Guderian understood the manners of war very well, yet he fought for a unjust regime, for one. Also, in a more abstract manner, I offer this refutation. Suposse that there are three men, a common benevolent man, a comman cynical man, a smart and benevolent man, and a smart cynical man. The common man has his concept of justice and its synonamous fair behaviror, and tries to act justly. I consider this man to act partially justly, since he is often misguided by a lack of intellegence. The smart benevolent man is fully just, since he tries to act just and also knows the methods to do so. The smart cynic, though he knows the mechanisms of justice rather well, does not try at all to be just, and may even be deliberatly avoiding justice to help himself grow powerful. This man I would call not just at all. The common cynical man does not know the mechanics of justic well, and he also does not try to follow them. Therefore, he never tries to be just, but he sometimes acts justly by mistake. This man I would call slightly just because of his occasional benevolent action.

Therefore, I propose this thesis: Justice is the general concept of benevolent actions, and extreme justice and injustice are seen in intelligent people, while moderate justice and injustice are seen in common people.
Any ideas or comments?

[SephirothChaos]

Well I would have to disagree about a one part of your thesis.You said that only intelligent people show extreme justice and common people only show moderate justice.I say that a common person can show a lot more justice to the world even if he or she wasn't intelligent.An example of this is a man named Larry,you might've seen him on tv.He began a program called "Feed The Children".Thousands of children were fed,cared for, and were given medical treatment in Haiti.When he was inspired to start this, he wasn't an intelligent man,he was only a commoner traveling.A little boy came up to him and asked him for money,he gaved the little boy money and that was when his brain started ticking.It didn't take a brain full of knowledge and years of rigorous education for him to start "Feed The Children".

So what do you think about this?

[eyespewgreekfire]

I would say that that man is an extreme example. Perhaps being driven or something should be added as a quality which can lead to a person doing extreme amounts of justice or unjustice. If you look at the most outstanding examples of intelligent benevolent people they do even more justice. Look at Gandi, for example. His non violent concept freed an entire nation.