The More Convincing Theory Of Justice

The More Convincing Theory Of JusticeJustice has always been a major subject for debates and exploration among philosophers and for centuries. Plato and Aristotle, the two most all-important(prenominal) philosophers of westbound civilisation are the earliest to investigate unlike dimensions of referee and develope their own theories respectively. Before a closer examination of their concepts, one must graduation exercise define the term. Justice is defined as on the dot behaviour or treatment and the quality of being fair and tenabilityable.1In the following essay, both the Platonic and Aristotelian theory of arbitrator in the suppose and individualist will be discussed and their possible law will also be analysed to achieve an quarry conclusion on whose theory is more convincing.Plato (427 BC-347 BC) is one of the founding figures of Western philosophy and is well-known for his break The Republic, in which he noned the qualities of an ideal state and a serious individu al by presenting his theory of legal expert through the words of Socrates. Platos aim of The Republic is to explain that we have to be just in all circumstances, for being just is always in our best interest. Through describing the amendly functioning state, it is obvious that Plato supports the system of rigid social hierarchy. This is seen through his boldness that cooperation amongst citizens of different classes to serve the common good is the key to achieve a successful state and thus attain social justice. The wants of individuals are therefore set up when each citizen performs their duty for which he or she is best suited, eventually bringing the greatest happiness for all its citizens. Moreover he views justice, wisdom, bravery and moderation as the four essential legalitys that enable a city to flourish.. Plato opines that wise and rational citizens ought to be the rulers of the city. Whereas those who are strong, and therefore best at physically demanding activities, should make up the auxiliary class with the virtue of courage to defend the city against enemies. Those who are good at natural crafts such as farming, trading, mining should have the virtue of moderation and exercise their duty to satiate the requirements of the society. Finally, in order to achieve social justice, each citizen has to carry egress their own functions in the society and non to attempt in meddling with the work of an new(prenominal). On the other hand, justice of an individual according to Plato is achieved when each part of their soul performs its proper function, with the result that the individual attains psychological harmony.2This allows a person to be content and complete, without any proneness to perform unjust actions.Aristotle (384 BC- 322BC), a student of Plato and one of the the founder of modern Western ideology, holds different views on the subject of justice. According to his famous work The Nicomachean Ethics, there are two distinct forms of justic e lawfulness universal justice and equality particular justice. Aristotle argues that that laws, which include good virtue aim either at the common good of the state or those in authority, therefore, it promotes and protect happiness of the political community.3He further pointed out that in a correct constitution, justice promotes the common advantages of all citizens moreover in a deviant constitution, it only promotes advantages to oligarch and the wealthy ruling class. Equality, on the other hand, involves three specific forms of justice that affect common advantages of the society distributive, corrective and commutative justice. The first form of justice involves in distributing common assets in a just proportion among masses in accordance with their merits, while the second form amends any previous unjust transaction amidst citizens to rejuvenate fairness. Lastly, commutative justice is found in communities of exchange, where citizens transact in equal terms. In additi on, Aristotle places a strong emphasis on the close connection between constitution and justice as he states all constitutions are a form of justice, for a constitution is a community, and everything common is established through justice.4According to his work The Politics, justice is being referred to as the communal virtue, which presents itself in the most perfect form of community, i.e. The political community. Justice in this sense is aimed at concerning the goods of others and is the most perfect form.Having explained both Platos and Aristotles respective theories of justice it is evident that Plato pursues the construction of a Utopian city state with emphasis on inner in the flesh(predicate) development as a contributing member of society, whereas the latter is more pragmatic and grounded in reality. Plato uses dialogues and point-counterpoints as argumentation to clarify his principle of justice in The Republic, yet, the definition of justice throughout the whole book is a mbiguous as Plato never defines the term clearly. Therefore, while he stimulates readers thinking on what is just and unjust, it is Aristotle who elucidates how.Critics argue that Platos theory of justice has nothing to do with the ordinary understanding of the term, which is to act with some regard for the good of others. Rachel Singpurwalla substantiates this, asserting that Plato caanot assuage our worries about justice by giving an narrative of it that ignores this essential other regarding aspect of justice.5Moreover, Plato emphasized inner personal relations rather than interpersonal relations as he stated, its justices real concern is not with external actions, but with a mans inward self, his true concern and interest (Plato 161) .6In fact it is the connection with others in the society that defines the ordinary sense of justice. For that reason when comparing Platos concept of justice with a typical understanding of it, the former only provides us a reason to have a just s oul, but fails to address the reasons to give the good to others.Furthermore, Platos theory is self-contradictory. The aim of The Republic is to show that justice is always in our best interest. However, individuals with just and rational souls ought to be the Guardians in his ideal functioning society. These philosophers rule the city simply because it is their duty and it is just to do so. They must fully dedicate themselves, sacrificing personal ambitious, family life and personal properties to promote welfare of the state. In this context, it does seem that a just individual sacrifices his/her self-interest for the common good. On the basis of this, Plato failed to explain why people should be just as it is not always in our best interests, contradicting the purpose of writing his book.In Platos ideal state the submission and subordination of personal desire are seen as essential in the construction of a successful society. The interests and rights of the individual citizen are largely overlooked, especially the bottom of the social class and slaves. maculation in contemporary society, where we are taught that everyone is equal, Platos rigid social hierarchy system and the disregard of social rights may not be accepted by everyone. Platos ideal social system is emblematic of low class mobility and overlooks the dissent that would be caused by keeping the lower classes and slaves in their position- with minimal prospects. Finally, Platos theory of justice is too idealistic and is almost inapplicable to modern society while the idea of the just individual is unattainable to many. If a theory was neither practical nor achievable, then it is unconvincing for people to follow.In contrast, Aristotle approaches the subject of justice systematically and provides classification of his theory to help understanding his theory, although some argue that different people may have various interpretation of his specific forms of particular justice. For instance, people may disagree on the correct proportion when distributing common assets among social groups. This difficulty arises not because of Aristotles defective analysis of particular justice, but rather the different value inputs into the system. His theory of justice can also be applied to different classes in the society. The practice constitution and law provides a fair framework of interests and rights for individuals, as well as safeguards citizens basic rights and happiness. As a result, when comparing Platos idealistic concept with Aristotles empirical model of justice, people will have more confidence in the latter, a society which bounded and safeguarded by just lawsEssentially, it will be argue that Aristotles theory of justice is more convincing not only because it is applicable to every social class and the contemporary society, but most importantly, it allows citizens to pursue their values and realise their highest nature, providing them a higher degree of satisfaction and ach ieving a good life. Platos theory is therefore, comparatively philosophical and idealistic, neglecting the general interests and rights of citizens.(1450 words)