Socrates and Aquinas

Throughout this semester, we have discussed many philosophers. With this discussion, we have found that they all have different views on what they think justice is. However, I am only going to be discussing the views of two philosophers. These two philosophers will be Socrates and Aquinas. You will first be seeing the argument Socrates gives, then the argument Aquinas gives and finally you will read my position on justice.

First, let me discuss the views Socrates has on justice. Throughout book 1, he listens to different views of justice, and knocks them all down. The first of these would be Cephalus. Cephalus has the definition of speaking the truth and paying debts unconditionally. Socrates has a rebuttal of this definition. If one were to borrow a weapon from someone, who at that time was of sound mind then wanted that weapon back but was not of sound mind anymore, would it be just to give the weapon back? Socrates says that, “one ought not to give back things of that sort, and that anyone who gave them back would not be just. (Republic, 331C 8-9) The second person in which he talks about justice to is Polemarchus. Polemarchus gives two definitions after Socrates knocks his first definition down. His first being to give each what is appropriate to him or what is owed. His second definition being harm enemies and help friends. Socrates continues to knock down each of their definitions of justice. He brings up the problem of false friends and mistaken enemies. If you’re supposed to only help friends and harm enemies, what happens if you mistake someone for an enemy who is truly a friend, and mistake someone for a friend who is really an enemy. Thrasymachus is the last of the ones who steps up to the plate. He has a long debate with Socrates over justice and what each think it is. Socrates says that in his republic, justice is everyone specializing in a single craft and focusing only on themselves and their job. Everyone is to be a master of a single craft and contribute equally to the society to make it work. There is only one class and that is the artisan class.

        The second author that will be discussed is Aquinas. He defines general justice as the habit by which we render to others what they are due. Sound familiar? This sounds a lot like what Polemarchus defined as justice. However, he does go on to say that not all justice is the same. Legal justice is not essentially all virtue, and there need to be other virtues directly orienting human beings in regard to particular goods, in addition to legal justice. Legal justice is one type of justice he gives, the other being particular justice. Legal justice is for the direction of actions within a community whereas particular justice is the direction of actions toward private individuals (Finnis 2005). Particular justice is directed to private persons, who are related to the political community as parts to a whole (ST I-II Q 61 A1). There are two subtypes to particular justice. The first being distributive justice and the second being commutative justice.  Distributive justice distributes common goods to individual persons proportionally. The actual distribution of common goods belongs only to those in charge of the goods, but distributive justice also belongs to those subjects receiving the goods (ST I-II Q61 A1 RE3).  The value of these exchanges is of the individual. Commutative justice consists of mutual exchanges of private goods between two people. In commutative justice, the exchanges need to be equal. If one man were to lend someone a single unit of good, then that man must then in return, give one unit of good.  This is not the same for distributive justice. If a man values a type of good more than the other, then he would demand more of that good in the exchange. If a man were to value rice three times more than water, then he would exchange 3 units of water for a single unit of rice.