Justice In Platos Republic Essays - Philosophy, Dialogues Of Plato

Justice In Plato's Republic Justice in Plato's Republic Justice Justice. What is justice? In this world where many people look out only for themselves, justice can be considered the happiness of oneself. But because selfish men do not always decide our standards in society, to find a definition, society should look at the opinions of many. Just as in the modern society to which we live, where everyone feels justice has a different meaning, the society of Plato also struggled with the same problem. In this paper, I will look into the Republic, one of the books of Plato that resides heavily on defining an answer to the meaning of Justice, and try to find an absolute definition. I will also give my opinion on what I personally think justice is. During the time Socrates and his fellow citizens spent looking for a definition, they came across many different examples. Well-known Athenians, such as Polemarchus, bring out their own definitions of what justice is, with examples like Justice is Doing the right thing, or Giving everyone his due. But soon after these definitions on justice were given, they were shot down by the quick wits of Socrates. Throughout the books of The Republic, I enjoyed reading the many ways that Plato picked apart the flaws in examples by others. It seems that Plato could find flaws without spending much time actually examining the definition. Friends and men of Athens had to restate and restructure their definitions time in and time out during the search for the meaning of Justice. Without the skill that Plato possessed in examining faults in definitions, one can quickly assume that a faulty definition works to be true. I did this many times while reading through different definitions. For example, the definition Polemarchus gives in section two of book one, saying that justice is giving everyone what is appropriate to him. To me, an example like this would fit as a definition, because without much examination, it works well for most situations. For example, if a man is good, then an appropriate r eturn for his goodness is to be good back to him. But if a man acts in a bad or troublesome way, an equally bad punishment is needed to counter his actions. I see this fitting, but Socrates of course easily found a flaw, finding this definition useless if followed, because of there not being a person best at benefiting friends and harming enemies. So the argument over what justice is goes on for some time throughout the Republic, only to lead to more unsolved definitions. Later, they talk about Justice on a more wide scale basis, rather that a personal basis. Stating that what is best for the community may in fact be what is best for the individual. In the end, Socrates and his fellow gentleman seem to arrive after much time with no agreement on a definition, a pattern seen in much of his work. But this still leaves the reader with many unanswered questions, the main one, What is the meaning of Justice? So the way I take it, there is not an agreeable set definition. I think this und efined meaning of Justice is still prevalent in the society of today, looking at the different ways so called Justice is brought and used throughout society. Throughout my life, I have seen and heard through news and media, many different examples of justice in our society, but for the most part they are not similar or set in all ways. Criminals that commit the same exact crime might be issued differing sentences, depending on factors such as gender, age or even status in society. Examples of this sort of injustice are seen almost daily, considering the crime filled world to which we live. An example of this could be rape or molestation. A man and a woman that both commit this crime would probably receive different sentences, in most cases, the man would get more time. But is this fair, are we being just in issuing unjust sentences like these? Status examples are also widely seen, cases where a famous or well known person might get off easy, because of who he or she

Watergate Scandal Essays - Watergate Scandal, United States

Watergate Scandal Essays - Watergate Scandal, United States Watergate Scandal THE WATERGATE SCANDAL Watergate is a hotel in Washington D.C. where the Democratic National Committee held their campaign headquarters. The current president at the time was Richard M. Nixon, who was involved in the scandal himself and which lead to the cause of his resignation. The Watergate scandal should not have happened, but it did and it caused the American people to judge less of their government system. The scandal began on June 17, 1972, with the arrest of five men who were caught in the offices of the Democrats campaign headquarters. Their arrest uncovered a White House sponsored plan of espionage against the political opponents and a trail of intrigue that led to some of the highest officials in the land. The officials involved in the Watergate scandal were former U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell, White House Counsel John Dean, White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldman, White House Special Assistant on Domestic Affairs John Ehrlichman, and President Nixon. On April 30, 1973, nearly one year after a grand jury investigation of the burglary and arrest of the people involved, President Nixon accepted the resignation of Haldeman and Ehrlichman and announced the dismissal of John Dean. Furthermore, U.S. Attorney General Richard Kleindienst resigned as well shifting the position to the new attorney general, Elliot Richardson. However, Elliot Richardson decided to put Harvard Law School professor Archibald Cox in charge of conducting a full-scale investigation of the Watergate break-in. Hearings were opened in May of 1973 by the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Activities with Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina as the chairman. Suddenly, a series of startling revelations began as Dean testified that Mitchell had ordered the break-in and that a major attempt was under way to hide White House involvement. Dean also claimed that President Nixon had authorized payments to the burglars to keep them quiet. The Nixon administration denied any involvement in the scandal, but the testimony of White House aide Alexander Butterfield exposed Nixon and unlocked the entire investigation. On July 16, 1973, Butterfield told the committee, on nationwide television, that President Nixon had ordered a taping system to be installed in the White House to automatically record all conversations. With this what Nixon had said and when he had said it was on the tapes and these tapes could verify everything. Cox immediately exposed eight relevant tapes to the court to confirm Deans t estimony. Nixon refused to release the tapes, claiming that they were vital to the national security. Therefore, U.S. District Court Judge John Sirica ruled that President Nixon must give the tapes to Cox, and an appeals court upheld the decision. Nixon still refused to turn over the tapes and on Saturday, October 20, 1973, ordered Richardson to dismiss Cox. Richardson refused and resigned instead, as did Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus. Finally, the solicitor general discharged Cox. Suddenly, a storm of public protest occurred, thus leading to the Saturday Night Massacre. Nixon, in his defense, appointed another special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, a Texas lawyer, and gave the tapes to Sirica. Unfortunately, some of the conversations were missing from the tapes and one tape had a mysterious gap of eighteen and a half minutes. Experts determined that the gap was the result of five separate erasures. Nevertheless, on March 1974, a grand jury indicated Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and four other White House officials for their part in the Watergate cover-up and named President Nixon as an unindicated co-conspirator. In the following month Jaworski requested and Nixon released written transcripts of forty-two more tapes. The conversations revealed an overwhelming concern with punishing political opponents and denied the Watergate investigation. On May 1974, Jaworski requested sixty-four more tapes as evidence in the criminal cases against the indicted officials. Nixon refused to turn over the tapes and on July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court voted 8-0 that Nixon must turn over the tapes. Thus, on July 29 and 30, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment, charging Nixon with misusing power in order to violate the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, obstructing justice in the Watergate affair, and defying Judiciary Committee orders. Then on August 5, 1974, three tapes revealed that Nixon had, on June 23, 1972, ordered