Friday, October 31, 2014
Helping friends, Harming Enemies
In Plato's Republic, the quote, "justice is helping friends and harming enemies" is argued by Polymarchus. I strongly disagree with this because I feel that harming enemies and helping friends is in no way just. For instance, say that a murderer is on trial. Is it just for the murderer's friend to lie and defend him, even though the friend knows he's guilty? Of course not. Also, say that it was the opposite. If John's arch enemy is rich, according to Polymarches' statement, it wouldn't be wrong for John to steal from their enemy. Obviously, this is not justice. If everyone harmed their enemies and helped their friends, the world would be a mess. Harming people you don't like is not morally correct, especially if the reason for not liking them is trivial. I believe that this argument is totally wrong. Yes, of course you should try to help your friends, but not unjustly so. I don't think you should harm your enemies either, especially since harming one enemy may lead to the creation of many more enemies. Justice is about what's right, not about what a person feels like doing. You feel like punching your ex-girlfriend/boyfriend in the face? Well, you could do it, but it wouldn't be justice. In fact, it would even be wrong of you to do so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree. Harming enemies is not always just. If someone steals something from you, it is not just for you to go and steal something from him, or do worse. That is why in a democratic justice system, crime usually leads to the punishment of 'time.' (Sorry to sound cliche) Prison is meant for people to reflect on what they have done and realize why it was wrong. However, some crimes that are deemed 'unforgivable' do lead to death. Although it does sound unjust that a judge decides the fate of a human life, sometimes "punishing your enemies," is necessary. If people that are now recognized as 'evil,' such as Sadam Hussein and Adolf Hitler were still alive, how would you feel? If people never set out to kill them, Hussein would still be alive and Hitler would never have killed himself. Just something to think about to make us see how complicated justice really is.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that you use the example of the deaths of two dictators to morally justify harming enemies in some instances. So if a person is vilified by the majority, if they are deemed evil, then a death penalty is automatically acceptable? The part of your comment that worries me is your question "how would you feel?". It sounds as though justice becomes the purely emotive expression of mob rule! I'm not sure if you intended to make such an argument, but the rationale for killing unpopular political figures looks unconvincing. Surely there must be a stronger justification for sentencing someone to death than merely widespread hatred of that person?
DeleteJustice in and of itself is a complicated concept that, I believe, lies with the individual more than anything. Like we said in class, we all have a general definition of justice or else we would not be able to determine right from wrong, but we can't actually define it. Who are we to say that getting vengeance when somebody has wronged us is not justice? This is where morals come into play: we know that it is wrong to harm someone, but is it not injustice to leave someone without punishment and let them go scot-free when they have wronged us? This brings several things into play: I, personally, believe in karma and in the universe punishing those who have committed wrong because of the imbalance they bring to the universe and things coming back around. As for helping friends, we'd have to delve into the definition of what a friend is, and whether or not an enemy is someone who has harmed us. We need everything defined to truly see what justice is, and that is the conundrum we are stuck in.
ReplyDelete-Eduardo R
I agree that if you interpret the quote “justice is helping friends and harming enemies” literally that it doesn’t necessarily seem like justice to those of us who are accustomed to the justice system we have here.
ReplyDeleteI find the example of helping a friend who you know to be guilty of murder interesting, mostly because it reminds me of a current story in the news that many people from my high school have been commenting on over the past few weeks. A friend of the suspected marathon bomber was just pronounced guilty for lying to the FBI about what he knew about the investigation. Of course most people, including myself, believe that he was wrong in lying to the FBI. But he faces a sentence of up to 16 years in prison, which many people think is excessive. Then again that opinion is held by many people who knew the guy personally, so there’s a good chance that their personal feelings are influencing their opinions. I think that just shows how complicated the concept of justice really is in the current context of justice.
I think we are considering this argument a little too literally. I think a little logic is required for this argument. For the example of lying for your friend on trial, I don't think Polymarchus would say lie. I think rather the main essence of this definition of justice, is to treat people fairly. For example, if your friend treats you well, you should do the same for them. However is somebody treats you poorly, you do not owe them any such kindness. I don't think the word harm is intended as literally as it may seem. I think this argument is similar in essence to, "treat others how you would like to be treated."
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely Christie; This quote is more about a pledge of loyalty than justice. If you're at the club with your friends and they start a fight with somebody, they probably expect you all to jump in and defend them (Random example, yes. This happens on the TV show the Bad Girls Club every season). But is it right to jump that person and leave them battered and bruised (probably to end up on World Star Hip Hop)? No. I think when faced in compromising situations between people you like and dislike, instead of having a bias for the person you prefer, you have to do what is morally right.
ReplyDeleteThis quote made me think about Hammurabi's code of law "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." Hammurabi created his own code of justice, where one should return the same pain that was inflicted upon them. Essentially one can harm their enemies and help their friends, which supports Socrates’ claim. Is it just to punish our enemies the same way they hurt us? It is interesting to see how the two men had similar views on the idea of justice even though they lived in different time periods and different cultures. Although consequences varied during Hammurabi’s time because the poor received harsher punishments, there is still the idea of returning pain in order to obtain justice.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this quote was meant to be take literally either and, just like most of you said, is instead a pledge of loyalty. Obviously if your friend does something wrong, you'd still support him (depending on the extent and severity of the crime) and if your enemy does something wrong, you'd turn him in, but I think the reason Polymarchus argues this point is because though it is not technically just, loyalty is still a virtue to be valued. After all, at this point in the Republic, we do not have a clear definition of justice and Socrates will dedicate many books to explain the background leading up to the definition.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the idea of harming enemies and helping friends is actually detrimental to society. I think that this has nothing to do with justice, but instead everything to do with loyalty. Jainita said that if a friend does something wrong, you should still support him and if an enemy does something wrong you'd turn them in. Although this is indeed how it usually turns out in life, I don't believe that it's justice. True justice would be turning in your friend if they committed a crime (or at least not wrongly defending them) and if your enemy did something wrong you would do the same. In my opinion, true justice is the same for every person, regardless of their social or political standing, race, gender, etc. Whether or not you are friends with someone shouldn't have to do with what is right and just.
ReplyDelete