What is Justice?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sy1dYFGkPUE
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Nothing more than the advantage of the stronger

What is question?

I AM JUSTICE

Can the notion of justice be objective? i say yes, because i believe that there exists objective Truths but its kind of a cop out- we can't know what these truths are (yet)

Methodological examination of the motives and outcomes for an action based on reasonably objective measurements of theoretical resolve within a locally prevalent moral system prior to enforcement

You know, this was my biggest issue with the Republic, and it happens so early in the book.

Socrates is just like "Well clearly that's not right!" and I'm like "Well, why not?"

BABY DON'T JUDGE ME, DON'T JUDGE ME, NO MORE

In law school they tought me that it is "the perpetual and constant will to give everyone their own"
Seems as good a definition as any

Problem is leftist fags confusing justice with equality

Thrasymachus here
It's doing whatever I feel is good.
>inb4 leaving people to their natural state
that's gay tho

What is?

What?

>their own
??

What rightfully belongs to them

?

this appeals to the idea that the gods allow the stronger to fuck the butts of the weaker like in melian dialogue. That supposes that
1. there are gods
2. the gods give a fuck about human affairs
>if i steal your shit with a gun in your mouth, then the gods approve because i am stronger. if they didn't approve, they would smite me.

...

which is?

>An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

It's not hard OP. Fuck they figured this shit out 4000 years ago in the Middle East.

leaf post was a good post today.

Justice is the absence of injustice

youtube.com/watch?v=sy1dYFGkPUE

That's what lawyers are for

Socrates looks negroid

what is injustice?
>inb4 the absence of justice

WE

Equal recompense for a given trespass of one individual by another.

Are you joking? Socrates tears his arguments to shreds.

I too am reading The Republic right now, OP.

I just finished that section. I found it incredibly difficult to follow, I had to reread sections over and over. It was incredibly obtuse. I understand that it's a formulaic kind of if this then that philosophy (or at least I think), but I wonder how useful it is for truly deciding "what is justice".

It seems reductionistic, no?

lol its ur mom

seems good. What if someone cut down an old growth Norway Pine on my property. What would be equal recompence

>Thrasymachus introduces the Sophist challenge by remarking that justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger. He does not mean to define justice with this statement, but to debunk it. His claim proceeds from the basic Sophistic moral notion: that the norms considered just are nothing more than conventions which hamper those who adhere to them, and benefit those who flout them. Those who behave unjustly naturally gain power and become the rulers, the strong people in society. Justice is the advantage of the stronger because when stupid, weak people behave in accordance with justice, they are disadvantaged, and the strong (those who behave unjustly) are advantaged.

>Plato’s (Socrates) goal was to prove that justice is worthwhile independent of the advantages it confers, so for him to argue that the worth of justice lies in the enormous pleasure it produces is beside his point. To say that we should be just because it will make our life more pleasant, after all, is just to say that we should be just because it is to our advantage to do so.
>Justice is worthwhile, on this interpretation, not because of any advantage it confers, but because it involves grasping the Form of the Good and imitating it. The just man tries to imitate the Forms by making his own soul as orderly and harmonious as the Forms themselves.

My dick.

There is no justice but an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Vengeance is natural, obligatory, and required.

TAKE. IT. BACK.

No problem.

Now that I think about it, reading a book like The Republic raw is probably not super helpful on it's own - just because of difficulty of the language used and material. Is there some sort of companion material I can read to better break it down?

the principle of specialization and harmony of the tripartite soul/city, according to the Republic.

I took a course on philosophy and my professor guided me through it. I wouldnt doubt there's some good videos on youtube to help walk you through the dialouge.

That would be up to you and the criminal. You would have to reach some sort of arrangement. He could trade labor, goods, money in such an amount as you feel repaid. If he refuses, beat him to death with one of the branches. Ideal justice is nearly impossible. We can only approach it with facsimile.

Difficult to define on its own. It often means something different for the individual than to society. It's actually not useful to attempt to define it without knowing to whom or what it applies. Eg Societal Justice, Individual Justice or Natural Justice.

an eye for an eye seems acceptable in many scenarios but my hypothetical pine tree...
does a sapling replace the tree?
will your dick give me the satisfaction of my enormous, thick pine?
i'd say no, sir

there should be courses on audible
i have one on my phone

Might be seeing some coming on strong tomorrow. Pic related.

Also, The Republic is definitely one of Plato's more advanced dialogues. You might want to work your way up to it.

I just powered through the first section yesterday - the one OP is referring to. I probably reread every line three times and still walked away feeling like I didn't really grasp it.

Do you have any recommendations of books I might want to read before I try to tackle The Republic?

But if I were to take a crack at it I'd say; justice is the mechanism by which we examine conduct against laws and accepted moral norms and dispense sanctions if the conduct is found to have strayed from them.

A man who tells the truth and pays all his debts.

It's just ice

Systemic fairness, i.e. non-hypocritical, non-contradictory rules and standards for society.

Lord Zamasu

debate me irl

Because the advantage of the stronger is simply the advantage of the stronger, and strength isn't justice. He later advances this argument within a greater definition of justice, showing how the strong but evil man cannot bring advantage to himself only through evil acts: this would be self-destructive and destroy his power, and he must rely on a sense of justice to advance his evil position. Thus justice is separate in form from strength and gaining advantage.
It is this higher element which separates justice, as its layered functioning necessitates that pure advantage may have to be sacrificed. This is effectively an inversion of what Thrasymacus is saying in that true strength requires one who can navigate the territory of sacrificing an advantage - the ruler, just as everyone else, instead seeks to do his job well. And this means that there must be a city soul or spirit to which the ruler is attending to or cultivating.
The personal soul and the soul of the city are two separate entities and pursuing one's own advantage could undermine the spirit of the city. Justice is instead the cultivation of the whole series of acts which bind the city to its soul.

...

Justice is preventing Evil to overcome the Good

Justice is simply equality of opportunity and equal treatment of all under the law.

Do not confuse equality of opportunity with outcome, and the second part basically means no one should be above the law and the law should apply equally to all.

injustice is Evil overcoming the Good

>What is Justice?
Justice is receiving what you deserve. If you do good and then receive good. Or if you do evil and then receive evil. The good man flourishes and the evil man perishes. Ultimately, law can only try to make things more just, but only God can correctly judge and fulfill justice in the end.

Euthyphro is ALOT shorter and a bit easier to grasp. It's about piety and god/gods. I would recommend it. I'd recommend paying attention to how Socrates goes about philosophy in that one, because he really shows it in Euthyphro.