Socrates brings on another question if those in power in the different states are infallible or not. Thraysmachus responds to this, as those in power are liable to make mistakes. But Socrates refutes to the answers given to him and Thraysmachus thinks Socrates is maliciou... ... middle of paper ... ...s is where I agree with Thraysmachus’ argument. In conclusion, “The Republic” is one of the “great books” of Western Philosophy because it discuses the real meaning of justice. The true meaning of justice shows how we can have an ideal society without corruption.
In the book one of Republic Socrates was concerned about what is justice. He forms a complex analysis of justice by discussing it with Polemarchus, Cephalus, and Thrasymachus. He refutes each proposition said by them, presenting implicit contradictions coming out of these man's arguments. All of this is to reach to, the Sophist, Thrasymachus. According to what's discussed in book one; Socrates sees that the Cephalus's and Polemarchus's common thinking for justice is insufficient.
In Plato’s Republic Book 1, Thrasymachus argues that morality is the advantage of the stronger. To support his view, Thrasymachus first claims that the governments, which are the stronger parties, always pass laws based on their own interest, and then argues that subjects must always obey these laws, therefore morality is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates gives two sets of counter arguments. First, by differentiating apparent advantage and actual advantage to the stronger, Socrates argues that the obedience to the laws by the subjects can be occasionally not in the actual interest of the rulers. Second, by claiming that all craftsmen only consider the welfare of the recipients of expertise instead of their own interest, Socrates asserts that a ruler, having an expertise of ruling, also only cares about the interest of the ruled, and thus morality is the advantage of the weaker.
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. Glaucon begins his argument to Plato by separating goods into three classes. The first class is composed of intrinsic goods that we welcome for our own sake, stripped of their consequences, such as happiness.
Socrates begins by asking t... ... middle of paper ... ...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. Out of the confrontation with Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, Socrates emerges as a reflective individual searching for the rational foundation of morality and human excellence.
His statement may make one believe that the people who are being ruled are considered to act right when their actions are going towards benefiting the rulers. You can also make an interpretation that the ruling class acts fairly by doing things that will benefit them. The confusion comes because Thrasymachus expresses his belief that, when the ruling classes do things that is geared towards benefiting them, they are acting unfairly. In his quote he says “advantage to the stronger”, which means Thrasymachus is arguing the concerns of justice... ... middle of paper ... ...ons of the people. Socrates brings out the argument that the leaders do whatever they do for the interests of the people.
Socrates defends his view of justice against his friends Glaucon and Adeimantus. Socrates asserts that justice, in itself, is a naturally good and is desired. To defend his view of justice, Socrates must first construct what he believes to be a
Socrates defines justice as minding one’s own business, while injustice is defined as the polar opposite. While Socrates argues that the guardian’s education should mold them into a suitable ruler, he later argues that the education of a ruler should not recreate an individual. At the same time he states that more emphasis should be placed on “the good” rather than nature. This he believes makes the most suitable ruler. In my opinion, he correctly states that a ruler needs to be good, but forgets to mention that they should also be taught how to approach the political aspect of ruling.
Socrates' Sides With? Through my reading of Plato's Apology of Socrates and Crito, I have been able to see how Socrates makes important decisions and what he primarily bases his decisions on. As a individual person we have individual morals which lead us to our own moral or immoral decisions. Sometimes are own morals or beliefs might oppose the views of the state or the enforced law that clams to find justice. In this case we rely on our own beliefs that may be through passed down morals or through ones belief in a higher power to find justice.
In the first book of the Republic Socrates and Thrasymachus argue about the nature of justice. Thrasymachus claims that justice is the advantage of the stronger. He also claims that Socrates’ arguments against that position stem from a naive set of beliefs about the real intentions of rulers, and an uncritical approach to the way words acquire their meaning. Present the arguments on both sides. Who do you think is right?