Paste your essay in here…The norms are considered constraints that effectively incapacitate those who adhere to them and play by the rules. In contrast, those who reject them, unjustly find themselves in a more beneficial position effectively bullying others into submission. As a result, less scrupulous people gain undeserved power and lack righteous application of the power. In other words, rulers are those who cease power by all means available to them, and who are ready to abuse it since the public interest is not among their priorities, either declared, or undeclared (116). From the societal point of view, it is a perversion of justice. More intelligent and better educated strata of the society behave in accordance with law, justice, and ethical norms, and thus become totally marginalized, deprived of power, and even publicly ridiculed. Therefore, he considers unjust behavior justified since it allows its social carriers to achieve their goal. In general, the concepts of “law,” “morality,” and “justice” are treated as unnatural restraints on human behavior and human’s natural desire to have more. He argues that people in general are evil and the good behavior and adherence to social norms is only due to severe punishments that would fall on potential violators. He praises people who are capable of violating established laws and rules and creating the new reality within which one could strive. Those people are apparently the subject of his admiration for being “strong” and “intelligent,” while the law-abiding citizens receive condescending characteristics, such as being “weaker,” “ignorant,” and even “evil” (119). Furthering his argument, Thrasymachus explains that “different forms of government make laws democratical, aristocratical, tyrannical, with a view to their several interests; and these laws, which are made by them for their own interests, are the justice which they deliver to their subjects, and him who transgresses them they punish as a breaker of the law, and unjust” (100). By describing the differences of governmental power and the various rules imposed upon citizens, Thrasymachus entertains the idea that the concept of “justice” does not have an absolute, or universal standard. Instead, dependent upon the priorities and philosophy of the ruling elite, the latter can create its own standard and expect that other citizens would either willingly, or unwillingly, accept it. As a sophist, Thrasymachus does not believe in an objective truth. Injustice is declared to be the best and most justified course of action. According to his philosophy, cheating on taxes, robbing fellow citizens, stealing money, and committing other unlawful acts should be societally acceptable (107-9). He further believes that the most objective truth comes from those in power with the rest of society being fully compliant with the newly established culture. Furthermore, the public should not require any justifications to the actions made and should fully surrender their very ability to disagree. Thrasymachus also questions the very concept of “right” and “wrong.” In his opinion, nothing is absolutely right or wrong; instead, the motif of those committing illegal acts should be understood and actions accepted if the said events were advantageous to a certain group of people.
Similar to Thrasymachus, Nietzsche describes the relation of power to justice and attacks the notion of an absolute truth in On the Genealogy of Morals. He argues that the concept of “justice” does not inherently belong to a civilized society, but it is merely a creation of a lower class, or “invention of powerless.” He considers the very idea of “justice” as an abstract entity, a philosophical concept that was invented by socially and economically inferiors in order to feel good and prove themselves correct (379). Nietzsche contends that to whom “goodness” was shown in fact did not appreciate it. Rather, “has it been the good themselves, that is, the aristocratic, the powerful, the high-stationed, the high-minded, who have felt that they themselves were good, and that their actions were good, that to say of the first order, in contradistinction to all the low, the low-minded, the vulgar, and the plebeian” (343). Their high position in society also came with the power over the words, and their meaning. The said power allowed the ruling elite to decide what can be called “good,” and, to the contrary, what can be categorized as “bad,” further outlining the disparity between aristocratic morality and priestly morality. Nietzsche emphasizes the lack of existence of objectivity and enforces perspectivism to account for the absence of an absolute truth. In Essay 3, Section 12, he states, “there is only a seeing from a perspective, only a ‘knowing’ from a perspective, and the more emotions we express over a thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we train on the same thing, the more complete will be our ‘idea’ of that thing, our ‘objectivity’” (419). Due to the unavailability of an absolute objectivity, he states that the level of objectivity is directly proportional to the number of perspectives on matter. In other words, by gaining more perspectives on the same matter we can approach the objectivity without actually reaching it. The concepts of “absolute truth” and “objectivity” are rather myths that could falsely lead us to the idea that there is only one truth and only one way of looking at the truth. Nietzsche further advocates that any idea, proposition, or novel concept, can best be evaluated by creating multiple perspectives and various points of view so that the most justified and multifaceted perspective could be developed. Within this context, the “absolute truth” means a certain perspective that is suggested by the analysis and appears to be most compelling. In his opinion, the truth should not be accepted blindly, without adequate proof and justification. Otherwise, it will become rationalization in itself exactly the same way the religious people accept God’s word, i. e. without any hesitation, as rationalization in itself (467).
Unlike the two philosophers discussed above, Plato rejects the notion of an “advantageous” justice and defends the existence of an objective truth. In Book VII of The Republic, Plato reaches a consensus on the meaning of justice and the value of truth through his depiction of the Theory of Forms. He explains his view of justice as “…the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world…” (227). Plato regards justice as a quality of the mind, some type of living entity that develops over time. He evaluates justice by using, as a criterion, its closeness to the Forms. In his opinion, worthiness of justice is not in some alleged benefits or advantages that people can receive, but in the ability to understand, appreciate, and imitate the Forms of Good. The critical point is his notion that the change must come from within, i. e. every person willing to become a just human being must make his/her own soul, and his/her inner world, orderly and balanced as the Forms themselves. Plato admits the disparity in humans, their educational statuses, and intellectual abilities, and concludes that those qualities are key preconditions for people’s ability to perceive justice (227). Plato also describes the value of truth, “…in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort…” (227). He further highlights the necessity for people to be in an active mode, since the truth cannot be attained through passive observation. So, the proactive position is presented not only as a desirable quality, but also as a precondition for the successful search for truth. Plato further argues that the search for truth is an integral part of mankind’s inherent curiosity in understanding basic universal values. In The Allegory of the Cave, the truth is presented as light, and ignorance is equated with darkness. In the same way that light can liberate people by abandoning the constraints and giving them a taste of freedom, the darkness can keep people ignorant and destitute with no hope in sight. Once the truth is realized, infatuation with appearance becomes a dubious act which has no correlation with the goodness and authenticity of a being. Plato also elucidates the idea that searching for the objective truth constitutes the basis of human faithfulness and the virtuous interaction among beings (223-4).