Over the last few weeks we have discussed the word justice and its meaning many times and I must admit that never before have I given so much thought to one word. There is a "given" definition that I, and I'm sure many others, have grown up with and have learned to understand and accept. However now, that entire understanding has been thrown for a loop and we are faced with defining it in real terms without using examples as we are used to doing. This has proven very difficult.
Now, in Book IV of Plato's Republic, we are for the first time given a wee bit of a definition of the word we have spent so much time on. "... justice is the minding of one's own business and not being a busybody..." (433a) In class we discussed that minding one's own business is a bit misleading here. Generally we think of that as only interfering in what concerns you or the avoidance of meddling when your input serves no contributing purpose. But what does that really entail? Are we supposed to ignore everything that isn't directly related to us (as in the letting-someone-choke example in class)? I don't think that's what Socrates is trying to say. Perhaps he means that when you do not do the task you are meant to perform and instead try to do someone else's, you are performing an injustice because you are not only leaving your tasks undone, but you are probably half-assing someone else's because you were not trained to do them. You are essentially screwing with the natural order of things and consequently causing injustice. If this is the case, I can more easily understand his train of thought.
Right after the aforementioned quote, Socrates goes on to say that what is left over after moderation, courage, and prudence are in the city, is justice. (paraphrased from 433b/c) Therefore, can it be assumed that justice is a by-product of those and those must exist for justice to exist? It becomes the chicken-or-the-egg argument to me. Personally, I think you do have to have those in order for justice to be possible. Without them, then injustice is inevitable.
-Ms. MacDonald
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While I agree with the majority of your post, I feel compelled to ask:
ReplyDeleteIf justice is simply a by product of moderation, courage and prudence, and if justice cannot exist without these three things, how would injustice be envitable? To have the antithesis of one thing, must you have the opposing exist as well? I ask this mainly from the position of the individual, not the city. To have the negative, must one have the positive? Does injustice still exist within the soul even if one doesn't have the three qualities that make up justice?
-Ms. Spradlin
During this class, we have discussed the meaning of many different values, especially justice. Once I think I finally have some conception of it, I hear or read something which confuses me, once again. Ms. McDonald did an excellent job of getting to the definition of justice. However, it is one of those things that will always be discussed on a continuous basis.
ReplyDelete