Is injustice a necessary evil?

I'm still a little fuzzy on the meaning of justice but when it comes down to it justice is served depending in what part of the world it is served. I heard the question of; if you had the chance to kill Hitler and save the millions, would you do it? This question led me to think about whether it would be ethical and just to kill Hitler after all can someone delegate justice and not revenge for what he had done. Then I arrived into the conclusion of killing Hitler might be an injustice which led me to think in many parts of history depending on what side people were on, was injustice an necessary evil for the greater good?

PS i poste on "X equals Justice"

The Golden Man

In reading chapter three of The Republic, I find it interesting how the discussion progresses on the topic of somehow creating the ideal man by censoring that which would hinder a man from being so. "If they are to be courageous they must learn still other lessons." From this, we read on to find what essentially turns out to be a list of virtues that should be established in young men by the way of censoring those emotions or thoughts that prevent those virtues. Some of the virtues we find are no fear of death, no over-fondness of laughter, and one that I found particularly relevant for our honors class, that they would prize truth.

The virtue I would like to focus on however, goes along with having no fear of death. Specifically, the issue here is when Socrates speaks of deleting the lamentations of famous men. When, after stating this as one of many virtues, Socrates goes on to quote several instances in Homer where great warriors, kings and gods are all portrayed in deep and heartfelt agony over death and loss, the problem thus arises  that young men would see these great men and gods and feel no problem with acting accordingly. The problem I found with this is that these men take it upon themselves to determine what is good for those young men to know. When I think of censorship, I really cannot help but think of instances like society in George Orwell's 1984 where a small group of people take it upon themselves to determine the knowledge of others. Maybe I'm just ignorant, but then again I've never been a big fan of being politically correct either.

PS I commented on Becca's

Justice Illustrated in the State

I find it interesting that Socrates chooses to illustrates justice in the state, claiming it is easier to see justice in the state than in the individual. I don't think I agree with this. Surely, if you are speaking idealistically about people you can create a fake image of justice. But that image, being built on unrealistic ideas, can't stand. The only time perfect justice has and ever will be executed is through God. Men can attempt all they want to come close to it, but the only way a man will be just when they have a heart that is seeking after the Lord. I certainly understand Plato's examination of justice in the individual more--but justice in the state simply causes too many problems for me.

One Big Happy Family

There was a part in Book V that just completely blew my mind.  Socrates mentions it only briefly in Book IV and then winds up having to explain himself after being questioned about it in Book V.  It is the part when he says that all men will share all women and children.  Before he jumps into this issue he settles the issue about whether women will be considered equal with men. After coming to a conclusion that men and women are equal  Socrates goes on to present the resulting law he thinks causes even greater problems which is, "That all the women shall belong to all the men and that none shall cohabit privately; that the children should also be raised in common and no child should know its parent nor the parent its child."(The Republic/ Book V /457d)

As soon as Socrates brings up the point about men sharing all the women and children Glaucon makes the comment that this is a far greater issue than the equality of man and woman.  What Socrates is suggesting is that there will basically no longer be any more individual family groups.  Socrates himself even questions if it is possible, but he comes to a conclusion that for the just city to be unified and for the state's greatest good women and children will be shared. 

The end result of Socrates plan to actually makes this possible is that all men and women who have children will consider every single child theirs whether it is actually theirs or not.  Thus, all the children will consider all the child bearers at that time to be their parents.  If there are people in the city who are too old to have children then they will be considered the new generations grandparents.  It is extremely confusing and very complicated.  I could not imagine living in a world where I never knew who my real mom or dad was. I also don't know how I would function without knowing who my actual child was.  Although, this is way too extreme for today's society to even find feasible Socrates does make a good point in it unifying the city.  If we truly considered everyone in our society as family, everyone would be so much more respected and cared for.  As a whole,our society would be more unified and we really would be like one big happy family.  As Christians we are supposed to view everyone as our brother and sister in Christ so maybe this is Socrates way of making it actually happen.  However, growing up in today's society and being a Christian I just cannot seem to find his plan plausible or morally okay or just.


p.s. commented on Katelyn Ewing's I don't want Socrates to be my doctor.

At Face Value

I was really affected by the discussion and the conversations that took place in class on Tuesday. I spent some time last weekend discussing the Euthyphro with my roommate to see if she could help explain exactly what Socrates says through this dialogue. I was completely stumped by the "approving" vs. "approved" argument and still am, but the discussion in class really made me think.

It made me think about questions that I have never considered before. It challenged my beliefs and made me question why I call them my beliefs. I had never considered the question, "Is God just because he saves us, or does He save us because he's just?" (I'm not sure if 'just' is the word that Dr. Mashburn used) This question made me think about how I would answer that if I was not a believer. How would I see a God that so many have declared as a just and holy God when so much evil is in the world? How could a just God allow so much injustice? Does God determine everything that occurs? Why does this 'just' God allow horrible things to happen to 'good' people? But then I ask myself, "Who am I to question God or his plans and purposes?" And after this question I ask another, "Well, would God want me to take everything I am told at face value? Or would he want me to seek out the truth for myself?"

I am in no way claiming to be an expert on anything, but I do not think that these questions should be disregarded. Yes, they may challenge what we have always been told and maybe even what we ardently believe. But I also think that there are certain challenging questions that need to be asked, no matter how ludicrous or offensive they may seem. I think the real danger lies not in asking these questions about God and his justness or holiness, but in taking anything we hear at face value.

No, I do not have an answer for the question that began this post, and I may never be completely set on one answer. But I am thankful for Tuesday's class because the discussions that took place made me take a second look at my beliefs about mercy, justice, and holiness and why I have those beliefs. So my challenge to the rest of the Honors class is simply to at least consider the questions that are asked. I am not asking you to completely change everything you believe, but I am asking that as an Honors family we seek out truth together and not take information that we hear or have always been told at face value. When we only take things at face value, I believe we miss an opportunity to seek and grow in our relationships with each other and with the Lord.

P.S.- I commented on Mallory S. post.

A Problem

After reading nothing but Plato for an entire semester, I'm still not exactly convinced on what he believes about sin. On the one hand, he really believes in a Just man- a guardian. He believes that there are some men of gold, those men are wise and good and seek justice and can censor others.
But if the just man can't be found- what then? I once heard that the genius of the American system is that we don't underestimate the corruptibility of everyone- everyone watches everyone else. I like this. I like the understanding that power corrupts all men. I think I am more of the opinion that if I had a ring of invisibility, I would try to get away with things. I really would. I am not above saying that I would probably be selfish, even though I wish that wasn't true.
Socrates, to me, describes Jesus in the just man, and i'm not convinced that anyone outside of Jesus is just. I am not fully convinced that any man is made of gold. At the same time, I want to be just, I do want very much to be made of gold, and it seems as if Jesus really meant it when he said "Be perfect just as I am perfect."
hmm.

Question

I  don't have any answers here or anything witty to say here, this was just something that I wondered while reading. 

In Crito, Socrates asks Crito why they should consider the opinion of the many, because the only people with considering were the good men and they would remember it the way it happened.  Crito argues that the many can do the "greatest evil to anyone who has lost their good opinion.  Socrates responds by saying that he wished they could to the greatest evil, because then they would have the ability to do the greatest good. "But the truth is, that they can do neither good nor evil: they cannot make a man wise or make him foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance."  

I don't really understand why Socrates insists that the people cannot do good nor evil.  He states that some of the people are good, so are they simply good in their nature without the ability to actually do good? Or is he only talking about the people who are not good? And if this is the case, does this mean that the people who are not good are not good because they don't have the ability to be good?

The Golden Rule

What is justice? Justice is the happy medium somewhere between the two extremes of being able to do wrong with no penalty and suffer wrong doings with no redress. I personally think the concept of justice is way over thought. It can be summed up in one simple sentence: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is the number one rule of all kindergarden classes for a good reason! We instill this method of thinking in our children at a young age expecting that it will stick. It is a good rule to live by, and it seems to solve the question of justice in a few easy words.

PS. i commented on Gary Hamner's blog

defining justice

I don't understand why Socrates cares so much about defing justice. I mean he builds a city just to define justice. I mean as a Christian I am aware that I cannot fully understand God, I just have to have faith. So why does he feel it is so important to define and understand the just and unjust. And who is he to declare that.I feel like the time he took just to define a term that cannot fully be defined is crazy. I don't know It may just be me, but people do spend their life's trying to define and understand God in the same since. To me justice is a word that is defined differently by everyone, and ultamately God has his own definition of just and unjust. It is just so confusing to me why it was so important to Socrates to define justice. To each his own I guess. Ps. I commented on Amanda's

Just or Unjust?

In book two of Republic Socrates argues with Thrasymachus about whether it is better to be just or unjust.  Around 365 b and c it is beginning to sound like it would be better to be a person who is unjust.  This is because "The consequences of my being just are, unless I likewise seem so, not assets, they say, but liabilities, labor, and total loss, but if I am unjust and have procured myself a reputation for justice, a godlike life is promised.  Then since it it the seeming, as the wise men show me, that masters the reality and is lord of happiness, to this I must devote myself without reserve."  This means that it would be better only to seem just than to actually be so, and are 366 it says that the gods won't even mind if this is what you do.  As long as you give them sacrifices after you commit an injustice, you're golden!  In 366 d it is also said that the ones who actually do justice don't do it willingly.  The only reason people commit justice is because they don't have the guts to commit the injustice.  I think a lot of this is how our society looks at justice and the just person today.  We see people who follow the rules as weak, dull, boring, or that they have a stick up their butt.  It also seems to me like it is the people who try to do good without making a scene about it are the ones who are criticized or lose everthing.  Joel Olsteen on the other hand has everything he could ever want. I don't know how the view of justice got to this, but apparently it has been a problem for a long time!

p.s. I commented on Gary Hamner's: Socrates' City
-Susan

I don't want Socrates to be my doctor.

We passed over Socrates' description of medicine in The Republic, but I decided to bring up a few lines that caught my attention. Socrates said, "Does it now follow that we should prescribe the kind of medicine and the kind of law we want to see practiced in our city? Those who practice these arts will minister to people who are truly well mannered in body and soul. As for the rest, those with bodily defects they will let die" (The Republic, p. 107-108).

WHOA! It looks like Socrates was a supporter of euthanasia long before it became an issue in America. This made me think of Hitler in Communist Germany. I wonder what idea of goodness caused Socrates to think this way. I don't feel very upset about the use of censorship in this "just" city, but I think that Socrates' idea of medicine is totally wrong.

I commented on Tyler Cofield's post.

the long road

I read the Ring of Gyges last semester in Intro to Philosophy, but I really enjoyed reading it again this semester. However, it still frustrates me. A lot of Book 2 is filled with arguments defending injustice and how enjoyable it is. One specific quote that highlights this distinctly is in section 364d:

“Vice in abundance is easy to choose,

The road is smooth and it lies very near,

While the gods have set sweat before virtue,

And it is a long road, rough and steep.”

When I read this quote I stopped and put the book down. It’s so true, and that’s why it frustrates me. The world we live in disregards injustice because doing wrong is so much more beneficial and entertaining than doing good or being just. One who desires to truly be just cannot decide on a whim to pursue justice because, in truth, the road is hard. What else could be expected in an unjust world? Justice won’t ever be held in high esteem when it’s impractical and unproductive by society’s standards. God is just. As a follower of Christ we know that our road will be hard: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.” Luke 9:23

Back to the question Mashburn asked in class… if there were no consequences would you steal a million dollars? A just person, I believe, would have to answer no, because there are always consequences. Even if you might not be punished for stealing the money, your actions will affect others. Because of this you must do what is right, and that means upholding justice even if no one else ever knows.

That’s one of the many thoughts that Plato has left running through my head.

P.S. commented on Rebekah’s “Health to the Soul”

Socrates verdict on Odysseus...

    Through most of book III in the Republic, I've been battling. I have not agreed with everything Socrates suggests, especially his very detailed censorship, however I do like his model for 'just' judges.  Here Socrates, again, stresses the importance of a pure mind. Basically, Socrates says that a 'just' judge is not one who has had experience with minds who are evil, but one who has grown up shunning evil natures.  For how could a judge accurately judge someone, if He himself had practiced or participated in evil nature himself? Would he not then be more lenient toward those evils, instead of judging them by the law?

     "He must be late to learn about injustice. And he must learn about it not as something inhabiting his own soul but as something he has trained himself to understand through long observation as an alien presence in alien souls. He must learn to understand the measure of evil not by way of experience but by dint of knowledge" (409 b)

 He then goes on to say a man like this would be the most noblest or judges and a good one at that. For the man who has a good soul is good. Then he lays out what is not a 'just' or a wise man.

    "But someone who is cunning and quick to suspect evil, someone who counts himself an expert in trickery, someone who keeps his guard up because he always expects to encounter patterns of behavior similar to his own- such a man does appear to be clever when he is with his own kind. But when he is among his elders and in the company of good people he seems instead to be stupid.... Still he consorts with bad people more often than with good; hence he seems both to himself and others wise rather than foolish"

    Now at first, I thought Socrates was depicting Odysseus, for Odysseus was cunning, crafty, definitely shady. He did always suspects something evil of people, and he did seem very clever to his own kind. Yet, this would mean Socrates was saying the Odysseus was not wise. This would have been a huge shocker to Athenians, after all Athena was Odysseus' patron goddess. He was known as a model of wisdom!  However, as I kept pondering this over, I realized that this could apply to the Suitors. They were very clever in their own eyes and with their own kind.  We know, though, that they were hated as foolish wretches by the good, faithful servants of Odysseus.  

   What is Socrates verdict on Odysseus? My opinion is that Socrates would not call Odysseus a 'just' man but not an evil one either. Thus, Odysseus would not be wise. Socrates final take on the matter is this, "I believe that the man with a virtuous nature-and not the evil man- will prove to be the one who is wise". Does this apply to Odysseus?

P.S. I commented on Josh Spell's post.

Filtration Fuels Frustration

The idea of Censorship is an ingenious way to create the "perfect" or "just" society, but it presents many complications.  If we look at how the world has used the process of Censorship, then we are able to see the picture more clearly.  As the government tries to impress its opinions upon the citizens, many eventually meet what can be considered a "breaking point."  The memory of Enlightenment resounds within my mind along with the echoes of the Great Awakenings, Industrialization, the rise of technology, etc.  These are instances where people became frustrated with life and declared their personal opinions in opposition to the general direction of the world.  The frustration was simply the creativity of humans acting in retaliation to being encaged.  History is infested with similar occurrences, and every circumstance revolves around innovative and radical minds.  My opinion is that humans are too complex to be placed inside of a box for too long.  Eventually, an eccentric personality is born, in which the standard of the world is questioned.  Censorship is similar to Communism because it looks incredible when outlined in an organized manner; however, successfully censoring the lives of countless individuals would become as chaotic and unjust as a communist nation.

Womens Rights in Ancient Greece

In book 7, Socrates tells Glaucon that all he has said before concerning ruling the city should be applied to women as well as men.I believe that it is incredible that Socrates views women as leaders instead of servants or slaves, as most men of that era believed. This idea is revolutionary in a time that women were to only work at the home doing domestic chores while the husband was allowed to participate in politics as well as his other jobs that supported his family. To think that an ancient Greek man thought of something that finally took place in America's 1920's. Could Socrates have been the first women's rights activist in society that was male founded and ruled?  It shows that Socrates was not a respecter of persons, atleast in the sense of gender. I wonder what a modern day Socrates would think of our society and what kind of changes would he or she make on a global scale. What would the world look like in his/ her wake? Would he/she meet the same fate? These questions may never be answered, or they could depending on the outcome of the future. Only time can tell.

Socrates' City

At first look, Socrates' city might seem just but I disagree. I don't believe that you can found anything, especially a society, on anything other than just and honest principles. Socrates did not do this when he founded, or made up his city. In fact, Socrates said that it would be perfectly ok for the leader of the city to lie to the citizens of that city. In the U.S.A our Government lies to us and that's just a fact, anybody who doesn't believe that needs to wake up, but the fundamental difference between Socrates' city and the U.S. is that America was not founded on lies and deceit. America was intended to be a country in which our government was honest. It is my personal belief that if you are going to have a truly just society then it needs to be founded on just principles.

PS: I commented on Joshua Spells post.

Health to the Soul

In book four of The Republic this general concept is presented -
Justice amounts to the health of the Soul.

In other words, your just or unjust acts, effect your health. I thought about this, I applied this, and this is what I think. I take that to mean your physical, emotional, and/or spiritual health is compromised when you act against God. All of the above. All three. When you are saved by the blood of Christ, you are under His law. When you commit an unjust act against the law of God, it will start to wear on you. If that unjust act then continues to be un-confessed, you will become, a.) Separated from God through lack of communication, b.) Easily upset and emotionally effected, and c.) You will be led to a stress that could cause physical damage to your body.
People may think that the consequences of an injustice are short lived and not that severe, but I believe, as Socrates believed, that justice amounts to the health of the soul. That's why it so important that we do the right thing, and are kept pure before God.

P.s. I commented on emilylaforce's "Why you have to go make things so complicated?"

X Equals Justice

The question "What is justice?" can be represented by the equation "x = justice". Presupposing that justice actually exists, man can surmise that it is something fixed, something transcendent, and something other than a utilitarian and arbitrary construct for the collective well-being of a society. From there, men can reason and dialog towards a viable working definition that is truthful, rational and (hopefully) agreeable.

So "x = justice"... but what is "x"? Man seems to know that it is, but in and of himself, he cannot seem to figure out what it is.

Why you have to go and make things so complicated?

I think the reason why Socrates gets in such trouble with everyone is that he wants a formula for life. He wants someone to tell him a concept that he can apply to all of his other problems, like when you know addition, then you can add any two numbers together and get an answer. However, life doesn't have a secret formula or a one size fits all. Socrates tells Crito that he can't escape his sentence because that would be disobeying the laws, which would then be unjust. Because in order to be just, you have to obey the law. First of all, I feel bad for Socrates because I feel like he ties himself in knots. You know what I would do if I was in his boat? I would just ask God what to do. Instead of putting my faith in human wisdom and all the moral precepts in the world, I would just ask God if he wanted me to escape from prison or get put on death row. Ultimate justice is defined by God because God is just, so the question is, what does God want you to do? Because if you follow what God tells you to do, your actions will be just. (P.S. commented on Michelle Nellsch's Women's rights in ancient Greece.)