Plato’s Function Argument

Essay by EssaySwap ContributorCollege, Undergraduate February 2008

download word file, 8 pages 0.0

Downloaded 1202 times

In Plato's argument I feel that it was a good argument, but you really could not, come to a final answer without coming to some middle ground. I truly believe that many people would choose to stay in a world where there's any justice, but we will all know that this world could not exist without justice prevailing. Having justice as an issue will be the solution. We all know that living in a world where there is in- justice will be a very disturbed world, because people will be doing evil to each other without consequences. There fore retaliation will be an issue. We will not know how to co-exist among each other. That is why the officials who are selected or trained to show leadership and rule, should know what justice is and how to apply it fairly. Because if we try to dilute ourselves into thinking that we as people could live in this world, where there are any consequences, we can do anything we choose.

That notion alone only corrupts the mind and could do the same to the world. Justice has to be over all. Then we would be organized, and the world could run smoothly. Not saying that there won't be some injustice that people would to do each other. But with justice standing tall. The people who do injustice to someone would know that there's consequences to receive for there action. In a world that injustice rules would be chaotic. There will be so much evil taking place. That it would practically be unbearable. The world we live in today has justice. And it stills have it evil that's done. Could we all imagine living in a world where there's injustice that rules and know one cares. That would be a horrible place to live. And for that reason alone we will still have to come to some middle ground. Because you can't live in a perfect world without it combining with an injustice world. Justice is a valuable asset. We all need it to prevail. And more importantly to know what justice is, so that it will in able us to apply it correctly. When we have fair and good values, we can allow ourselves to live well, because justice is a good virtue. I strongly believe that Plato argument was a good argument because every good person would want to live in a justice world, but I also believe that a world ruled by justice is good, but you also have some injustice in it. But in the justice world consequences are dealt with fairly. Where as in an injustice world no one would care. If no one knows what justice is or if it is not applied. How would a just soul allow a human being to live well? In this specific question, we must know what justice is and be grounded by it. What Plato is saying is that if we live a just life than our soul will live well. That question stills points at knowing what justice is will influence the outcome of the way we live. If we know what it stands for, then we could apply it. I have no problems with Plato's argument; I sincerely think that a justice world is best. And even though there would be people who would choose to live in an injustice world. Justice is fair. We can not live in a world where unfairness prevails. One can only wish that everyone will treat each other fairly. But in some cases this doesn't occur. When justice is the issue at hand and people have to treat each other fairly because it's the law. I think it will have a good and sound impact. Plato's arguments are aiming to demonstrate that justice is a better model. Because an injustice world would cause an unbearable side effect. And living without laws and organization is the perfect ingredients for a confused world. Retaliation would take over, because there would be so much evil. We will be practically hurting each other. I believe that this world could not run without order, justice and the appointed officials who show leadership to enforce justice. Plato's argument could hold some truth. But the question still remains. If we do not know what justice is, how could we apply it to the world that's supposed to be run by justice? To me justice is fairness, treating everyone equal without showing prejudice. Everyone knows justice should be displayed. To let everyone know that it's consequences to your actions. And knowing that they are going to be treated fairly, but dealt with in a fair manner is the way it should go. No one wants to have some injustice done to them without consequences, or retaliation being the side effect. When we live a just life and do what we should. Justice will follow. But when we live an injustice life where we take what we want and treat others with no regards. Injustice will follow. And that goes back to the injustice world. When there's any conquences but retaliation. When you do wrong to someone, some one else does it to you. It becomes a chain reaction. To it overflows with evil. That's the main reason why justice should be the better choice and it shall prevail. If we think about it there is no such thing as the perfect world. Because we would have no need for justice. And justice would not be a valuable asset. We would not have to think about consequences or retaliation. When the world is considered perfect. But being that we live in a world that's imperfect. Justice has to rule and be the issue at hand. No one can live a happy life in a world filled with confusion. Where there are any consequences and any high authority. Justice is what puts order in place. It put limits and boundaries. Limit and boundaries is what separates wrong from right. So without justice been ran or not even being considered. What kind type of values would that world hold? I truly believe its morals and values would be non-existent. In a world ran by justice, that model of justice would be based on some moral and values. Therefore it can enforce fairness, and have order. And everyone can live happily and in peace. Because everyone is doing what they must do. A world can't co-exist in confusion and chaos. We would not know how to function. Evil would be so far out of control. And what worst no one would care. That is why injustice is not best. Much as we like to believe that somehow we would be happier in an in just world. We cannot possibly be. There is no way. And just because in justice is preferred by Thrasymachus, doesn't mean it's the best choice. I would question his morality. Because why do he believe that a chaotic world is more preferable than a world of order. His claim holds any ground or can stand. I do however think that he would have some people to agree with him. But the other claim about a justice world would stand stronger. Because it is right. And it is best. And we must do and stand for what's right. However, Thrasymachus 's approach on how the world should be ran. It's his opinion, but its stands void. Plato's way of thinking about justice should be enforced. Holds truth in many ways. And I truly believe he is thinking rational. So this argument is a go between rational and in rational thinking about justice. Unfortunately Plato's claim has some accuracy. I have to vote between Plato or Thrasymachus claim. I can strongly say I agree with Plato. Because justice is better. Fairness is always better. Because how would a world of injustice be fair? No one would care about each other and respect the right of others. There would be any limits or boundaries, to the wrong you can do. I deeply hurt just thinking about how that world would be. You would basically struggle to stay alive. Because there would not be a high authority. People would be like hunters, just out for themselves. The crime would be at an all time high, people would be dying in huge numbers. My heart hurts that someone would even entertain the though of such evil. We must have justice and fairness in everything we do. Order has to be in existence. Because if anything is ran unorganized, there would be confusion and trifle. And like Plato says a justice world would be better. You have to think of the world. And in the world there contain a lot of people. You must think in turn what would be in the best interest of people. And that would be justice. A lot of people might don't want rules and laws in place, because no one likes to follow rules. But rules are best. Fairness is best. We must enforce it. Thrasymashus I feel is only thinking of himself. But he must realize he won't be the only one living in the world. If he was the only one, justice would not be an issue, because it's no one around to care or enforce it. He would basically do what he wants to do. But we know that we can't do that. We can not live completely the way we want. Every one has to have limits, So that we can co-exist with each other. This argument would somehow be one sided, because the model of injustice would only be a thought in someone's head. Everyone at the end would choose the model of justice. It is what's best for the world to run smoothly. Plato I truly believe has a good point. I also think he's looking at things in a mature prospective. And letting us know we must not think so selfishly, In turn for justice for ourselves. His views are more acceptable. Thrasymashus prospective is selfish and shows no mature view. He's not caring about how the world would turn out to be. Only what he think would be best in his own words. Would no doubt be the worst decision. Plato I think on this particular view, think more in turn of a leader. Who cares about fairness. That's why I believe Plato's claim is best. When I was reading this particular function's claim between Plato and Thrasymashus, I couldn't believe that's it would actually be someone, who would try to refute Plato's claim view. Because his claim really doesn't hold any moral ground. And it's not rational thinking at all. Thrasymashus's view is only ingredients for massive destruction among humankind. Plato's prospective of justice is more commendable. And it has a strong point that would be a better model.

IN CONCLUSION: PLATO'S FUNCTIONAL ARGUMENT What this argument is aiming to demonstrate is justice is more preferable then in-justice. According to Plato if we live a just life our soul will live well. I can say I strongly agree with this discussion. Because doing what you suppose to do as a human being will allow you to have peace, because justice is a good virtue. I feel that this argument was successful because I can see where Plato is coming from. In my own words it aiming a lot at wanting to do and live right. Now Thrasymachus claim aims more at what he feels, in other words (doxa). What he feels is right. Not what he knows to be right. Plato's claim is more (episteme) more knowledgeable. What he knows to be right. Because in order for justice to be successful, everyone must do what they suppose to. And when the world is in order, no one would want in-justice to play no part in it. Because everyone will want to live well.