The Republic is a very complex piece of literature to me in many aspects. I, personally, during the whole time we studied the book was just looking for the simple and quick definition of what justice actually is. A last, there is no quick and easy definition to find in the book, but many examples and valid points that lead up to creating one complex answer. For me, this does not help me to better understand what this one sought out definition really is. There has to be a simple and readable definition that everybody can understand and not have to have an extensive knowledge of the book. In my only words, Justice is carrying out the laws set forth by a higher authority to better run a society. This definition by me is simple, to the point and for the most part not too complex. However, I would assume Socrates and Plato would find this definition incorrect and point out its many faults. But to me, this definition is much better than anything plato wrote because its concise and to the point, even if it has its fouls. Plato would however appreciate the aspect of the higher authority used in the definition. Plato says in the The Republic that a ruler will create the laws and the soldiers will carry the laws set by the ruler and the people obey the authority of the soldiers. With all this working sync, a just society will be created. My definition points out the authority part with having a higher person in power to carry out the laws. This only one part of my definition that sort of coincides accurately with Plato’s writings. One flaw that Plato could argue within my definition is the aspect about carrying out the laws set forth. Not everybody will carry out the laws set forth, because not everyone is a just person, especially in are society today. Not everyone will go around carrying out the great “American virtues of are government” (this is speaking in the sense of justice in America). Some people are just corrupt from the start of there lives and are guided to do what they feel is necessary to them to be happy, which is of course not just for society in general. An example of this would be a drug dealer. The so-called drug dealer thinks he is doing just by providing others with precise drugs that so many people need, but it is actually causing more problems dealing drugs is illegal and is it not a just thing to break the laws set down by a higher authority. This is where people will in another term incorrectly carry out the laws set forth by a higher authority. However, this point about carrying out the laws can be seen as happening all the time. Even the most corrupt people are carrying out the laws, even it means carrying out the simplest and most basic things a person does on a daily basis. An example of this would be wearing clothes. It against the law to wear some form of clothing while you are in public. Even the most corrupt and mental ill people(for the most part) abide by this rule, which makes them slightly more of a just person. This bring up another point that everybody is a just person. Some people are just to the smallest degree thinkable, while others come as close as you can to be the textbook example of what a just person should be in society. This statement sounds a little dumb founded, being that it’s like saying everyone is capable of becoming rich and successful, but the point is still that yes it is still true and you can’t ignore it. The final aspect that would be disputed by Plato is the final part of my definition stating to better run a society. By being a just person, society itself will become a better place for everyone. This makes sense because with people being just there would be no need for crime in society. However, Plato would say that following the laws set down doesn’t make you a just person. I pointed this out by saying that even the most corrupt are just because they follow even the most simplest of laws. With that said, the just people of the smallest amount will still cause problems in society. For example, looking back at are friend the drug dealer, he thinks he is being just by supplying society with drugs, but doing this he is potentially creating bigger problems such as drug wars, medical problems, family issues etc. The question now lies how can these minimum just people be restrained from doing the unjust things they think are just? One simple solution is that the just people who are close to become the perfect example of a just person can help to control and teach these less just people in the world. These people can be seen as law enforcers such as police, doctors, therapists and other such people of this nature. In conclusion to my definition, there is room for argument and debate about its true nature of what justice is. However, the simple nature which become easy to understand for most people can be seen as a starting ground on the discussing of what justice is. Of course there are better, more complicated definitions, but for someone of simple thinking like me, this definition of mine will do just fine.
A Simple Definition of Justice