Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Nature of justice by plato
Platos ethics on justice and injustice
Plato about justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Nature of justice by plato
There's a dramatic shift in the dialogue when thrasymachus enters at 336b. Thrasymachus is an interlocker unlike any other. In the socratic dialogues, he is not respectful, he's obnoxious, and he's not interested in taking part in this common project of conversation governed by reason to try to arrive at the truth about the definition of justice. Instead he dismissed the entire conversation as a waste of time. The definition of justice, says Thrasymachus, is obvious to anybody who thinks of it for more than a few minutes and socrates is just showing off his rhetorical skill in front of his friends by pretending otherwise. Justice, says Thrasymachus is obviously just the advantage of the stronger. That's all it ever has been and it ever will be. Socrates obviously disagrees with this definition and he will set forth his own account soon enough. Much of the rest of the book Republic will be occupied with giving an extended response to Thrasymachus’ point of view. But first Socrates exposes the contradictions in Thrasymachus’ view. Socrates thought that a false view will always …show more content…
In the course of this speech he also makes the claim that a just person always gets less than an unjust person. In other words it is always to our advantage to do the unjust thing if we can because being just or playing or playing by the rules doesn't get you ahead in life. Note here that Thrasymachus uses his words carelessly. Earlier he had said that justice was the advantage of the stronger, but now he seems to be praising injustice and being advantageous. Socrates tries to force Thrasymachus to take more care with what he is saying. Moving slowly through an argument will lead us to the truth. While careless speeches will lead us astray into
Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual. However, Plato examines the justice system from the perfect society and Aeschylus starts at the curse on the House of Atreus and the blood spilled within the family of Agamemnon.
Kephalos defines justice as returning what one has received (Ten Essays, Leo Strauss, page 169). On the other hand, Kaphalos’ son, Polemarchus, states that justice is found in harming one’s enemies and helping ones’ friends (Republic, 332D). The final opinion in the discussion is given by Thrasymachus as he says: “justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger” (Republic, 338C). However, the lack of knowledge to apply their definitions in reality creates a problem for Socrates. For example, Polemarchos’ view on justice requires a person to be able to distinguish between a friend and an enemy (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Socrates then refutes their definitions of justice and states that it is an advantage to be just and a disadvantage to be unjust. According to Socrates’ philosophy, “a just man will harm no man” and the application of justice becomes an art conjoined with philosophy, the medicine of the soul (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Therefore, the use of philosophy in ruling a city is necessary and the end goal of justice cannot be achieved unless the philosophers
Plato's Book I of The Republics presents three fundamental views on justice which are exemplified in Thucydides' On Justice, Power and Human Nature. Justice is illustrated as speaking the paying one's debts, helping one's friends and harming one's enemies, and the advantage of the stronger.
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
Thrasymachus also argues that it is advantageous to live an immoral life rather than a moral one. He says, "morality and right are actually good for someone else… and bad for the underling at the receiving end of the orders… the opposite is true for immorality: the wrongdoer lords it over those ...
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.
Thrasymachus said in a meeting with Cephalus, which many of us have attended, that justice are only made to advantage the ruling class and not as profitable as injustice. (The Republic I, 344a-d), which most of us have disagreed and only Socrates defended justice and convinced him. Today let us think only of justice in Socrates’ case. Are we today going to be
Hourani, George. Thrasymachus' Definition of Justice in Plato's Republic. 2. 7. Focus Publishing, 1962. eBook. .
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...
...s are a paradigm case of those in control. The essence of ruling is, therefore, to be unjust and that is why a tyrant is a perfect ruler. He always knows what is to his advantage and how to acquire it. Thrasymachus’ view of justice is appealing but therein lies a moral danger and this is refuted by Socrates.
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.
Thrasymachus’s main argument is that, “Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger” (338c). In other words, Thrasymachus believes justice is advantageous to the stronger because those who behave justly are disadvantaged, and the strong who behave unjustly are advantaged. In his sense injustice is more profitable than justice because it allows people to enjoy benefits they would not obtain if they were to act just.
Thrasymachus defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. “I say justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (338c). Thrasymachus explains how rulers are the most powerful people in the city, who make the laws, which are just therefore making the rulers the stronger. He explains that rulers make laws that will benefit themselves; whether this means they make laws that are just depends on the type of ruler. “democracy makes democratic ones, tyranny tyrannical ones…” (338 10e), he is saying that if one is democratic their laws will be fair and just but if not they will make unfair rules and therefore be unjust. Thrasymachus explains that the reason he thinks that justice is the advantage for the stronger is because the people who rule cities have more power than everyone else and therefore determine what the rules are and what is just.
Although I am critical of Socrates’s reasoning, I categorize it as a flaw, but not a fatal