Introduction
The republic is one of the most famous works done by Plato all attributed to the numerous lessons that he learned from Socrates. Thought the book the narrator is trying on the topic of Justice on why men should be justice in what they do. It is for that reason that the narrator sets to answer the question of what is justice and why people should be just. These questions are answered through a series of discussions that the author sets with some of his friends. It is from the conversation that the narrator learns more about the different views and perception of justice. As indicated by the author, the concept of justice may be viewed differently by different persons in the society, and therefore the society has a different perception of the topic. Despite the fact that the author has his own perception on the topic, he later learns that his perception is very different from the other.
The begins by indicating that the author was returning from a religious activity when together with his friends encounter by other friends who proposed to them to a detour to his house. In the house, they are joined by Polemarchus aging father of Cephalus and others. At the house, Socrates and the old man starts a discussion on the merits of old age, but the discussion eventually turns quickly to the subject of justice. Cephalus who is a well-respected elder is the first to offer the first definition of justice by indicating that it is the act of living to the morals required and being honest with what one is doing (Plato, Ferrari, and Griffith, 15). According to Cephalus, justice can be defined through the morals and activities that a person does daily. It is for that reason that Socrates intervenes and illustrates that an act of justice can be defined by a person who is returning a weapon to madman if the weapon legally belonged to the madman. From that example, the author indicates that justice can be defined by doing what is legally required by the law even if the act does not favor the person. However, the author further indicates that justice is far beyond honoring legal obligation and the fact that a person wants to be honest. As indicated in the book, another person outline another definition of justice indicating that justice is the act of owing help to a friend and on the other hand owing harm to your enemy. Despite the fact that the second definition may seem different from that which was stipulated by Cephalus, the two definitions have a link in that they use the principle of rendering what is not good and rewarding what is good. The principle has been indicated to be the foundation of the Socrates definition of justice in the later books. The two definition one by the old man and one by the young person have minor differences as one may be been seen to represent the attitude of an ambitious young politician, and the other represents the attitude and the ideas of an old established businessman.
From the book the author uses the principle of justice as required legally indicating that most peoples do justice not because it is required, but because of the morals requirements. Besides, the author stipulates that based on our judgment concerning friends and enemies, most people end up harming good and helping the bad. The author indicates that the society we live in is not concerned with doing justice rather but rather doing justice in the wrong ways. It is for that reason that the author indicates that many are instances when people end up harming others in through the idea of doing justice. The author stipulates that through the act of justice people end up having more enemies than friends. However, the author indicates that people do not always have enemies at all the times but through the act of justice numerous people are harmed and thereby forming more enemies than having friends. The concept and definition of Socrates is unsatisfactory according to other critics. As indicated in the book, other critics argue that justice is an act that has nothing to do with taking advantage of the other as they indicate that it is a delegitimization process. As stipulated by Socrates, justice is a process that leads to the victimization of some individuals as it takes advantage of some peoples. However, the critics of the definition by Socrates have argued that just behaviors only works for the benefit of other people and not to the person who behaved justly. For that reason, it may be argued the act is a convention imposed on the people and does not benefit any person who acted in adherence to the act. However, the author indicates that it is just to act in justice despite the concept that the act will trigger other consequences such as hatred among others. The reason for this is that justice is an act imposed to the humans either through the social norms or the obligations set by the society which requires every member of the society to act in a justice manner. As argued by Plato, age is not a benefit and a source of wisdom that may justify any act of justice. Plato indicates that wisdom and goodness are the two factors that enable a person to act in a justice manner (Plato, and Robin Waterfield, 5). However, as indicated by Cephalus, old age is a source of misery and resentment, and it is only that peace and wealth may view old age as a source of wisdom. Plato argues that does not necessarily need to be wealthy in order to satisfy the requirement of just and good. It is for that reason that the author indicates that justice does not depend on anything but solely depends on the goodness that is presented by a person. According to Plato, every person of the society including the rich and the poor are obligated to behave injustice ways regardless of the benefits associated with the act.
It has been well indicated that once man justice is another man’s injustice. From this indication, Plato indicates that a person may have the obligation of acting in a justice way, but the move turns to be a source of problems for the other person. It is for that reason that Plato decided to explain the definitions of justice in two ways. The first one he used a city and the second one he used an individual human being soul. From the city illustration, Plato indicated that society was composed of the producers, the auxiliaries or the warriors, and the rulers. According to the author, the society was just when the relationship between the three classes of people was right. This was only facilitated by the act of justice practiced by the three groups of people. However, the author argued that each group was supposed to play its role effectively for the society to have peace and leave in harmony. It is for that reason that the author indicates that justice is a principle of specialization which requires every person to fulfill his or her role effectively. As a matter of fact, justice is only encountered when people do what they are supposed to do. Despite the fact that the activities may be either as a result of the legalization of willingness, it has been seen that in most cases justice is connected peace. As indicated by the author, without peace a person may never act in a justice manner. However, as indicated in the book a covenant of justice will only be beneficial if the two sides involved comply effectively. On the other hand, it would be dangerous if either does not comply as it would lead to injustice for some individuals.
Despite the fact that justice is important in the society, it is in addition important in the acquisition of fairness and equality. As a matter of fact, without justice people may be treated unfairly and the access to vital requirement. It is for that reason that different countries have established different legal justice enforcement agencies all which seeks to justice and fairness. However, though the process of acquiring justice and fairness, some people may end up suffering as a consequence of the practice. It is therefore important to note that the behavior or the act of justice does not always favor the intended person as sometimes may offend others. Any society, community or a nation is required to prevail justice as it has been found to have benefits to all the members of the society. In such a nation or a society, no one has greater rights or higher benefits than the other one, and therefore justice prevails when the members enjoy equal rights. On the other hand, no one in such a society should be denied his or her rights, and in case such practice occurs, it always results to other forms of violence which may seize peace in such communities (Raphael, 12). In some societies, justice means punishing actions that aim at promoting equity among people from the same society. On the other hand, justice means upholding things that are right and good. It is for that reason that Plato the author of the book Republic indicated that justice may be defined using the three part of the soul. According to the author, there is part of the soul that known as rational which seeks after truth and is the one responsible for people philosophical inclinations, on the other hand, there is the spiritual part of the soul which is responsible for our feelings. Finally, the appetite part of our soul is responsible for memory and our earthly desire. Using the three parts of the memory, any act of a person may be defined by whether the person responds to activities using the three parts of the soul. It is for that reason that it may be concluded that it is important to act in a justice manner as the behavior leads to peaceful life in the society and the nation.