From the times of ancient Greece, an era of thought and enlightenment emerged some of the greatest thinkers of all time, such as Socrates and Plato. Over the years, many questions have been raised by these men or posed by them. In Plato's "The Republic", Book I the fundamental question hey focus on is, "What is Justice?" Plato says that the just man does what is good and right to his friends, and wrong and evil to his enemies, though sometimes it is good to do wrong. On the other side of the argument is John Stuart Mill and his view on liberty. Mill was raised as an orthodox utilitarian from earl childhood. He believed that all good is pleasure and all evil is pain; good is ultimate, regardless of motive. Both philosophers put forth well-structured arguments with examples that seem to prove their case. Personally, I agree with Thrasymachus, a character in Book I of "The Republic", in saying "I declare that justice is nothing else than that, which is advantageous to the stronger." Throughout this paper, I intend to explore both theories to better allow you to see that both have their valid point but neither defines justice, in fact the theories contradictory, disproving each other whilst proving their point. .
Plato (428-348 BC) wrote "The Republic" after Socrates death in 399 BC. Socrates is the main character in Plato's dialogues, using his familiar Socratic method to decipher a person's idea of something. In Book I, Socrates argues with Simondes before turning his efforts to Polemarchus. Throughout this book, Plato describes how Socrates disputes everyone's idea provong more and more what justice truly is. Through discussing the idea of justice, the real meaning of justice is revealed. For example in his argument with Thraymachus, who believes that justice is nothing else then that which is advantageous to the stronger. Socrates would ask him questions and discovered exactly what he meant by what he said, then, Platonically and Socratically dispute the answer.
