Sunday, September 7, 2014


In Book 1 of The Republic justice is the main discussion between the men. Each man seems to give his descriptions of justice, and Socrates picks out every flaw in each definition. Each time someone explains their definition, they slowly convince and by the end of the explanation, you are fully convinced that is the definition of justice, but Socrates rejects it. It is obviously annoying, but by the time the next man starts explaining you get over it because he convinces you of his way.

 One of the points that stuck out to me was returning the weapon to the madman part. Even though the man is mad, the weapon is still rightfully his and justice would be to give the weapon back, but would injustice be better in this case? I think that is super interesting to think about. Like connecting to that, can justice be bad but still be justice? That was one of the questions we asked in our small discussion groups, and that really made me think. Can justice be unjust? Giving the mad man his weapon back would be be bad, but it is still technically justice, because this is the man's weapon, but that could be harmful to more people. So many different opinions on that part, which I like.

 Justice for me, is just following the law and rewarding people and punishing people when needed. I do not think that it is different for every case. The law is the law and I think instead of biasing our opinions on every single case, the people who determine their consequences or rewards, should go by the law and only that. There should be no special treatment for anyone because of their race or gender. The Trayvon Martin case was a very good example of special treatment for race. In our society today there is a lot of controversy over whether or not race plays a part in how we decide outcomes of cases. Although there are many different opinions on that case specifically, I believe that there should be no special treatment and if you did something wrong, your race should not matter you should be punished same as everyone else.

 Age is even iffy whether or not you should get special treatment. I think I am biased because I am under 18 that we should treat minors differently, but if someone under 18 kills a man, they should be given the same amount of consequences as a man who is over 18. The only exception in my mind to that is if they are deemed insane, which they should go to a mental hospital, and then serve their time there.

 That was obviously my own opinion above, and I hope readers will disagree and feel strongly about their definition of justice if it differs from my own.

1 comment:

  1. You do a good job of outlining the first chapter in your first paragraph. He sets up each person to basically refute their own arguments through the use of questions.

    You also make some great connections between justice and lawfulness. You show ways in which just actions could have unjust consequences, which is why we still need to have judges, lawyers, and juries today. None of these decisions are easy.