More handpicked essays just for you.
Socrates arguments against thrasymachus in the republic
Platos virtues of justice
Modified divine command theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Thrasymachus and Socrates were a few of the first people to inquire why people should be moral. In Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus states that “individuals act unjustly because acting unjustly brings them greater benefits than would acting justly.” This is true, which is the reason people act unjustly in the first place- for personal improvement. Socrates, on the other hand, refutes this argument by pointing out how acting justly affects the person’s welfare. Justice, says Socrates, is interwoven harmony between the three different sections of the soul: appetitive, spirited, and rational. The appetitive must be prevented from becoming “so big and strong that it no longer does its own work but now attempts to enslave and rule over the classes it is not supposed to, thereby overturning the poor …show more content…
He argues that God will no longer favor immoral people, and force them to suffer punishment for their immoral actions during the afterlife. Although he does leave this argument eventually, it has much weight persuasively in today’s culture. Almost every modern religion places some sort of importance upon acting with morals. Most of the time, it is ordered and specified what is wrong and what is right by that religion’s God(s). This thought that God gives laws to obey is called the Divine Command Theory, and is the leading argument for why to act with morals. However, this argument, too, has several problems with its final assertion. The main issue is that in order for this argument to carry any weight whatsoever, both the giver and the receiver of the argument must have the correct type of religious belief that goes along with the argument. Since the existence of God and the possibility of afterlife are currently an ongoing debate, a nonreligious individual will not be led to agree with those arguments, nor will a religious person who does not agree with the argument’s different
Socrates a classical Greek philosopher and character of Plato’s book Phaedo, defines a philosopher as one who has the greatest desire of acquiring knowledge and does not fear death or the separation of the body from the soul but should welcome it. Even in his last days Socrates was in pursuit of knowledge, he presents theories to strengthen his argument that the soul is immortal. His attempts to argue his point can’t necessarily be considered as convincing evidence to support the existence of an immortal soul.
In Walter Mosley’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, the reader is introduced to Socrates Fortlow, an ex-convict who served twenty-seven years for murder and rape. Fortlow is plagued by guilt and, seeing the chaos in his town, feels a need to improve not only his own standards of living, but also those of others in Watts. He attempts this by teaching the people in Watts the lessons he feels will resolve the many challenges the neighbourhood faces. The lessons Fortlow teaches and the methods by which he teaches them are very similar to those of the ancient Greek philosopher for whom Fortlow was named: “‘We was poor and country. My mother couldn’t afford school so she figured that if she named me after somebody smart then maybe I’d get smart’” (Mosley, 44). Though the ancient Greek was born to be a philosopher and Fortlow assumed the philosopher role as a response to the poor state of his life and Watts, both resulted in the same required instruction to their populations. The two Socrates’ both utilize a form of teaching that requires their pupil to become engaged in the lesson. They emphasize ethics, logic, and knowledge in their instruction, and place importance on epistemology and definitions because they feel a problem cannot be solved if one does not first know what it is. Socrates was essential in first introducing these concepts to the world and seemed to be born with them inherent to his being, Fortlow has learned the ideals through life experience and is a real-world application in an area that needs the teachings to get on track. While the two men bear many similarities, their differences they are attributed primarily as a result of their circumstances provide the basis of Fortlow’s importance in Watts and as a modern-...
Thrasymachus was a rhetorician whose orator skill were praised by Dionysus of Halicarnassus as “pure, subtle, and able, to speak either with terseness or with an abundance of words” (Guthrie, 1969, p. 167). Thrasymachus believed, as most Sophists do, that justice was a hindrance to an individual’s genuine interest: wealth, power, and pleasure. Thrasymachus conveys that justice is the interest and advantage of the stronger or “might makes right” (Plato, The Republic, 380 B.C, pp. 338d-339a). Thrasymachus felt that conventional morality be worn as a garment to conceal the egoist and self-centered motives underneath. Justice is nothing more than convention that serves the interests of lawmakers and if one wants justice, gaining power instead of appealing to an absolute standard of morality is the way. It is here that Plato’s theory and Thrasymachus’s demurring seemingly reach an
Plato’s Republic focuses on one particular question: is it better to be just or unjust? Thrasymachus introduces this question in book I by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests. Therefore, he claims that justice is “stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice” (Plato, Republic 344c). Plato begins to argue that injustice is never more profitable to a person than justice and Thrasymachus withdraws from the argument, granting Plato’s response. Glaucon, however, is not satisfied and proposes a challenge to Plato to prove that justice is intrinsically valuable and that living a just life is always superior. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge.
It is his companions, Glaucon and Adeimantus, who revitalized Thrasymachus’ claim of justice. Thrasymachus believes that justice is what the people who are in charge say it is and from that point on it is Socrates’ goal to prove him wrong. Socrates believes that justice is desired for itself and works as a benefit. All four characters would agree that justice has a benefit. To accurately prove his point of justice, Socrates has to reference his own version of nature and nurture. He, Socrates, believes that justice is innately born in everyone. No one person is incapable of being just. Justice is tantamount to a skill or talent. Like any skill or talent, justice must be nurtured so that it is at its peak and mastered form. The city that Socrates has built is perfect in his eyes because every denizen has been gifted with a talent, then properly educated on how best to use their talent, and lastly able to apply their just morals in everyday
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
Socrates and Thrasymachus have a dialogue in Chapter 2 of Republic which progresses from a discussion of the definition of morality, to an understanding of the expertise of ruling, and eventually to a debate on the state of human nature. The Thrasymachian view of human nature has interesting implications in regards to Thomas Nagel’s ideal of egalitarianism, and Barbara Ehrenreich’s discontentment with the economic disparity in our democratic society. Although Thrasymachus is thwarted in conversation, Glaucon finds the outcome not entirely conclusive and directs Socrates to proving that morality, in and of itself, is a worthwhile pursuit.
The debate between Thrasymachus and Socrates begins when Thrasymachus gives his definition of justice in a very self-interested form. Thrasymachus believes that justice is only present to benefit the ruler, or the one in charge – and for that matter any one in charge can change the meaning of justice to accommodate their needs (343c). Thrasymachus provides a very complex example supporting his claim. He states that the man that is willing to cheat and be unjust to achieve success will be by far the best, and be better than the just man.
Initially Thrasymachus states that Justice is ‘nothing else but the interest of the stronger’. Cross and Woozley identify four possible interpretations; the Naturalistic definition, Nihilistic view, Incidental comment, and the more useful Essential analysis. The ‘Essential Analysis’: “An action is just if and only if it serves the interest of the stronger,” with Thrasymachus stating the disadvantages of Justice and advantages of Injustice. This leads to problems with the stronger man, is it merely the promotion of self-interests? If Justice favours the interests of the stronger, is this simply from the perception of the weak with morality not concerning the stronger? Cross re-formulates Thrasymachus’s view as ‘Justice is the promotion of the ‘strongers’ interest’, therefore both weak and strong can act justly in furthering the strongers interests. However, complication occurs when we understand that Justice is another’s good: “You are not aware tha...
There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for themselves by looking to new divinities.
Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice. Thus the role of Book I is to turn the minds from the customary evaluation of justice towards this new vision. Through the discourse between Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Socaretes’ thoughts and actions towards justice are exemplified. Though their views are different and even opposed, the way all three discourse about justice and power reveal that they assume the relation between the two to be separate. They find it impossible to understand the idea that being just is an exercise of power and that true human power must include the ability to act justly. And that is exactly what Socrates seeks to refute.
Thrasymachus has just stated, "Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger", and is now, at the request of Socrates, clarifying his statement.
Week nine was a very short week in class. Due to outstanding circumstances we only had a chance to meet for one class. The class took place this past Friday. We started class with discussing Plato in hopes to end our ongoing discussion regarding Plato, and Plato on Virtue. In class we all came to agreement that the ultimate virtue to Plato was justice. Referring back to last week’s diary I quote myself, justice can be described as each part of the whole doing what it is supposed to do. According to Plato, justice is a quality of the soul. Also Plato believed that justice would cure all evil in a society, therefore making it also a social consciousness, and therefore good. This would be present in an ideal state or ideal society according
ABSTRACT: In his philosophy Plato gives a prominent place to the idea of justice. Plato was highly dissatisfied with the prevailing degenerating conditions in Athens. The Athenian democracy was on the verge of ruin and was ultimately responsible for Socrates's death. The amateur meddlesomeness and excessive individualism became main targets of Plato's attack. This attack came in the form of the construction of an ideal society in which justice reigned supreme, since Plato believed justice to be the remedy for curing these evils. After criticizing the conventional theories of justice presented differently by Cephalus, Polymarchus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, Plato gives us his own theory of justice according to which, individually, justice is a 'human virtue' that makes a person self-consistent and good; socially, justice is a social consciousness that makes a society internally harmonious and good. According to Plato, justice is a sort of specialization.
Socrates whose role is mostly wise into understanding a person of reality higher than anyone that can understand a person. He is one who implements the entire arsenal of Western logic and rhetoric to accomplish his end of rarifying and finally fixing the point of a given dialogue. For philosophy, we see ourselves mirrored in the arguments we advance and are made intellectually and spiritually better for having reflected so much and having been so reflected. He is portrayed in these works as a man of great insight, integrity, self-mastery, and argumentative skill. Socrates use a dialogue known as the Socratic Method based on between two or more people who are hold different in the views they pursue to seek the truth with one another. Using questioning skills in order to