The be “best for himself” (Plato, 2011, p. 84).

The concept of ‘good judgment’ is a particular interest in philosophy. According to Kant, judgment is the “central cognitive faculty of the human mind” as it is a result of other intellectual faculties such as observation and argumentation (Hanna, 2017). By having good judgment, one can generate well-thought beliefs, logical claims and propositions, and reflective decisions which contribute to just actions. However, the question of what constitutes a good judgment remains debatable. This essay aims to present two different responses to the question, particularly from Thrasymachus and Socrates in Plato’s The Republic. Lastly, this essay aims to argue that the conflict between these two arguments are effectively resolved by the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.Thrasymachus argues that “justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” or what he refers to as the ruling authority of the state (Plato, 2011, p. 82). This means that whenever a ruler enacts a law, it would always be to his advantage. For instance, a democratic state would implement democratic laws in the same manner that tyrannical states would enact tyrannical decrees (Plato, 2011, p. 82). This further implies then that, for Thrasymachus, good judgment is that which is advantageous to oneself. He claims that as a ruler is a ruler in a “precise sense”, he ought not to make errors and must only legislate regulations which would be “best for himself” (Plato, 2011, p. 84). Hence, as strong persons are capable of making good judgments for himself, justice then, is that which only emanates from him.Socrates, on the other hand, regards justice as the harmony of the parts of a person’s soul namely his appetitive part, spirited part, and rational part (Plato, 2011, p. 146). According to him, there is justice in a person when these three parts accomplish their designated function and not meddle with the others (Plato, 2011, p. 146). For instance, the appetitive part which is concerned with a person’s appetite should not meddle with the rational part which is in concerned with the intellectual faculties. As long as the rational continues to manage and rule over the other parts, the person remains just. Consequently, if a person is just and is ruled by the rational portion of his soul, he can make good judgments. Hence, his actions and decisions would be a product of this good judgment.