Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The republic essay plato
Thrasymachus definition of justice
Plato and democracy in the republic
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The republic essay plato
Interpretation and Evaluation of Thrasymachus’ definition of justice In Plato’s Republic I, a dialogue between Socrates and Thrasymachus ensues. They are arguing about justice, and at one point Thrasymachus gives his own definition of justice. Thrasymachus states, “I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (338c). It is important to note that Thrasymachus is not talking about who is physically stronger, this is evident from the text when Socrates questions him about it. Socrates inquires, “it is to [a pancratist’s] advantage to eat beef to build up his physical strength; therefore, this food is also advantageous and just for us who are weaker than he is?” (338d). Thrasymachus is disgusted by Socrates absurd …show more content…
This…is what I say justice is… the advantage of the established rule…the advantage of the stronger (338e). The above quote summarizes Thrasymachus definition of justice. Thrasymachus hold that justice is the advantage of the stronger, which is to say that justice is just a moral system that has been developed by those who govern in a specific location. In other words, justice is specific to region, and is dependent on who governs. This is where Thrasymachus definition of just falls apart. If justice is a moral system specific to a certain territory, then many different moral systems would be allowed to propagate completely independent of one another. If this is true it means that morality and all the systems derives from it, are wholly subjective. Thrasymachus has provided a definition of justice that has torn itself apart. If justice is a subjective, then anyone can decide what it is on a whim, and the efforts to define what justice is become useless. In other words, justice cannot be reasonably defined since it is always changing, and depending on location, are completely different. Not to mention that there can be multiple justice systems that are independent of each other, while operating at the same time. Furthermore, one could define a justice system in contradiction
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
This refutes the conclusion of Thrasymachus' argument; the facet of human nature that drives us to power does not solely rest on a desire to commit immoral acts. Further examining Premise 2 of Thrasymachus' Argument shows that Thrasymachus could only give a defense that is circular with the conclusion of the argument. The only viable route he could use to support the claim is to say that acting immorally injures those people superior to oneself, thus making one more superior than he was before. However, this argument is circular because the desire to become superior is a premise to acting immorally, and acting immorally is a premise to desiring to become superior (Thrasymachus' Argument).
Also, that justice is a certain type of specialization, meaning that performing a particular task that is a person’s own, not of someone else’s. Plato (2007), Polemarchus argues with Socrates in book I that, “Justice was to do good to a friend and harm to an enemy” (335b p.13). Plato (2007) he then responds, “It is not the function of the just man to harm either his friends or anyone else, but of his opposite the unjust man” (335d p.14). His views of justice are related to contemporary culture, because when someone does something that they are supposed to do, they receive credit or a reward for it, but if the opposite of that is performed, by not doing the particular task that is asked, they are then rewarded but with punishments. Also, that justice is doing the right thing in a society. Justice of contemporary culture does not diverge from the views offered in The Republic and Socrates views are adequate, because if a task is not performed the way it needs to be, and is supposed to be a person should not be rewarded for it. Additionally, that an individual should be just not
Thrasymachus’s definition of justice is incoherent and hard to conceptualize within the context of the debate. What remains unclear is Thrasymachus’s ideal definition of justice. At first, Thrasymachus definition of justice after passage 338c remains disputable. Justice, Thrasymachus states, “… is simply what is good for the stronger” (338c). Therefore, on its own, this statement could infer that, what can benefit the stronger is just and therefore can be beneficial to the weaker as well. Therefore Thrasymachus definition can be taken in different contexts and used to one’s discretion. Additionally, Thrasymachus changes his definition of justice multiple times during the discussion. Thrasymachus states t...
Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote “One man’s justice is another’s injustice.” This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient to Socrates also. Eventually, the two agree “that it is never just to harm anyone” (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a common good, for harming people according to Socrates, only makes them “worse with respect to human virtue” (Republic 335 C). Polemarchus also allows for the possibility of common good through his insistence on helping friends. To Polemarchus nothing is more important than his circle of friends, and through their benefit he benefits, what makes them happy pleases him.
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.
Some laws command citizens to behave contrary to the interest of the stronger. If justice is merely obeying laws then justice is not always the interest of the stronger. Thrasymachus counters that when rulers pass laws contrary to their interest then they are not the stronger at that point in time. Thrasymachus uses an analogy of a mathematician.
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.
Of course I looked “justice” up in the dictionary before I started to write this paper and I didn’t find anything of interest except of course a common word in every definition, that being “fair”. This implies that justice would have something to do with being fair. I thought that if one of the things the law and legal system are about is maintaining and promoting justice and a sense of “fairness”, they might not be doing such a spiffy job. An eye for an eye is fair? No, that would be too easy, too black and white. I could cite several examples where I thought a judge’s or jury’s ruling was not fair, but I won’t because frankly, we’ve all seen those.