Justice

people have to perform their function. It brings justice in the society and this attitude brings profit for just men. Idealist people support that good Justice is a right of human, it is chosable whether use it or not. In the Plato’s Republic, there is a big argumentation on the concept of being just or unjust, or being a good person. Socrates and other philosophers have some thougts about these concepts, and try to find out the existence of justice. Plato tries to explain his understanding of justice and injustice or which one is more profitable or not in Republic through dialogues of Socrates and Thrasymachus. Firstly, ıt will be mentioned about idealistic and realistic perspective. In the second part, I will go trough the definition given by Thrasymachus and Socrates. In third section, I will be evaluated Thrasymachus’ and Socrates’ view about justice. At last, I will explain that Is justice profitable or not for Socrates and Thrasymachus? And how are their approaches. In conclusion, I discuss whether justice is profitable or not.
    Justıce is experienced in two perspective as realistic and idealistic views. In idealistic perspective, abstract relations and ideals have a great importance more than the concrete one. They support that people know everything via coherence of thoughts, with the help of ideals and as ideal. In this book, Socrates has an idealistic perspective towards justice. He supports that justice in the city and in the individual is the same thing. In realistic perspective, concrete things are more important than abstract things. Realist people support that presence is detached from conscious and it exist objectively. In this book, Thrasymachus has a realistic view. He supports that if strong people have the control of justice, they can use this for their own self-interest.
    Thrasymachus, He says that “…justice is nothing than the advantage of stronger” (338c). He develops his arguments by giving examples of some cities which are ruled... [continues]

Read full essay