Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Polemarchus' Definition of Justice

Polemarchus, the character from Plato’s The Republic, is noted for defining justice as “doing good to one’s friends and harm to ones enemies.” In my opinion, I do not think this is a very good way to think of or define justice. A person should do good for everyone, not just someone who you think is a friend. You should do good to everyone not only because it is the nice thing to do, but all humans have a moral obligation to be virtuous and kind to one another. Although being kind and doing good things for your friends is the right thing to do towards your friends, what if your “friend” has ill intentions or is simply using you for the good deeds you do for your friend? This would mean you are doing good to your enemies, which would contradict the quote made by Polemarchus, thus invalidating his definition of justice.
That goes along with the second half of Polemarchus’ quote, you should do no harm to anyone, either. If someone has wronged you, justice is not committed if you harm someone out of malice or revenge. For example, if someone steals something from you, stealing their things would not make the situation fair. Even though you might feel as if justice was served if you take matters into your own hands, it is not because you partook in an unjust and immoral action.
If I had to define justice, it would use part of Polemarchus’ quote by suggesting that you do what is kind and fair to everyone. If you serve justice by treating everyone equally and punishing people for their crime equally and fairly, then the situation would be just. I do not completely agree with Polemarchus’ definition of justice, but I do not think that it is completely wrong in regards to defining what is just.
Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. AnonymousJanuary 25, 2015 at 6:43 PM

    Hello! I'd like to start by saying that I respectfully disagree that one should do things for the active benefit of one's enemies. By doing good for everyone, I'd be benefiting the people who wish to do me harm. In my mind, this means that I am enabling them to do more harm to me than they already could without my help. The best way that I could think to be kind to my enemies would be to avoid them if at all possible; that way I could avoid aiding them or causing interactions that would be to the detriment of both of us.
    Furthermore, if someone were to steal something from me, why should I not take it back by in the same way, so long as I am only retrieving my property? If society were to enforce equal/fair punishment, in which case I would be able to retrieve my item against the thief's will anyway, then by your definition, I would be considered to be just. Why is the support of others needed in order to perform just acts? Could there be any situation in which a person can be the only one willing to do the right thing when everyone else shares the opposite ideal?

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousJanuary 25, 2015 at 10:22 PM

    Lauren,

    I agree with your view on Polemarchus' view on justice. He believes that you should do good to your friends and not to your eneies. You used the point of what if your "friends" were not real, then in Polemarchus' terms you would actually be doing good to you enemies whether you know or not. I do believe that justice should be set in good morals of not only what benefits you but as well as others in a positive way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousJanuary 26, 2015 at 6:35 AM

    Lauren, I absolutely agree with your viewpoint on Polemarchus' definition of justice; I also feel the definition invalidates itself in the idea that one's friends could actually be enemies in some cases, and vice versa. So with that being said, it is in fact better to just treat everyone the same by doing good to all, because it is not in our power as human beings to be able to wholly identify our friends and enemies or what their true intentions are.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)