From Plato’s and Rachels’ perspectives, justice, although still very important, is a subjective and relative concept. First of all, justice can be interpreted differently by each individual. Justice cannot be reduced to one definition because there will always be people ready to challenge and supplement the views of their predecessors who tried to define it (Plato, 1997). “Plato gives his theory of justice, according to which justice is a human virtue” (Orr, 2017, p. 47). Moreover, justice is the social consciousness that makes a society harmonious. Another premise is that in terms of the personal good or harm to oneself personally and their relatives, fairness and just behavior are always evaluated subjectively, depending on the particular situation.
In my opinion, acting justly in all cases is better than acting unjustly. The reading focuses only on the subjective benefits of a particular action and, in most cases, unjust actions that are dishonest towards others, but at the same time, favorable to oneself are more likely to be optimal (Plato, 2002). They are more optimal because the person primarily satisfies his own needs, regardless of the justice of the action towards others, and from this comes the conclusion that it is more profitable to act unjustly. However, acting unjustly toward others can damage one’s social status, and hence a reduction in overall well-being. Secondly, unjust actions always have a negative outcome, either towards others or towards oneself, which also reduces emotional well-being. Thirdly, unjust actions by one person against others will result in others doing the same, which can have a negative impact on one’s life. Therefore, by acting justly towards others, we primarily protect our social status.
References
Orr, J. (2017). An Analysis of Plato’s The Republic. Routledge.
Plato. (1997). Republic. Wordsworth.
Plato. (2002). Five dialogues (2nd ed.). (G. M. A. Grube, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company.