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?
In my opinion, the meaning of justice is more complex that just “doing its own business.” To me, justice is more closely related to fairness, in that no person should be treated as though they are above the law. Each person should be punished and rewarded accordingly to their actions. My definition fits into Socrates’ definition in that each person should be treated for who they are and fairly, despite ... ... middle of paper ... ...ucation is better suited in creating a just ruler than any other type of education. Yet, Socrates believes that the education of a philosopher-king makes them a more suitable ruler. Socrates defines justice as minding one’s own business, while injustice is defined as the polar opposite.
I will argue that the characters have good reason to accept the first premise because rulers must be stronger than their subjects or else they wouldn't have reached the position of ruler. And if there is a case where a subject is stronger than the ruler himself, then the ruler can easily quiet that particular subject using the powers he has been given as a ruler.
Thrasymachus claims that there is only one principle of justice: the interest of the more dominant force. Socrates counters this argument by using the phrase “the stronger.” He claims that the ruler of a nation will not be aided, but harmed, by an unintentional command, in the long run. Socrates then builds his argument gradually by stating that the good and just man looks out for the interest of the weaker, and not for himself. Thrasymachus tries to counter Socrates’s argument by vaguely proclaiming that injustice is more gainful than justice.However, Socrates bravely explains that the just man will live happily because he has a just soul, and the man with the unjust soul lives in poverty; therefore, injustice can never be greater than justice. At this point in the novel I saw Thrasymachus’s flaw and also the reason why Socrates has silenced Thrasymachus.
Plato’s view of division of labour is divided into three types of peoples’ task in life which are workers as farmers, military type and guardians. Actually, the ruling task of Plato’s Republic is the guardian’s responsible who had achieved the greatest wisdom or knowledge of good. Due to that, Plato claims that “philosopher must become kings or those now who called kings must genuinely and adequately philosophise’’ (Nussbaum1998, p.18). However, people argue about the reasons that the philosopher should rule the city, while the philosophers prefer to gain knowledge instead of power, thus they don’t seek this authority. Therefore, the argument should alter to why the philosophers are the best ruler to govern people.
Generally, a republican government is defined as one which idealizes the public interests as the highest good and imposes a duty on each citizen to work toward the public interests before individual ones. Due to the influence of natural rights philosophers, Madison’s ideas are not strictly republican despite the fact that he considers them to be so. Not long before Madison, a French philosopher named Montesquieu wrote several works about classical republicanism. One major claim he stood by was the age-old idea that “political virtue means self-renunciation”. In other words, the goal of politics is for individuals to devalue selfish interests and instead work to achieve the interests of the entire community.
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.
It explores the reasons why the concepts are right or wrong. In book one, Thrasymachus definition of justice is, “the advantage of the stronger” (341d). His view on justice that justice always gives more authority and rule to people who are already in power. The argument that Thrasymachus makes is difficult to understand. 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.
He explicates his position by saying, “each government passes laws with a view to its own advantage: a democracy makes democratic laws, a dictatorship makes dictatorial laws… In so doing, each government makes it clear that what is right and moral for its subjects is what is to its own advantage.” (Republic 338e) In this example Thrasymachus claims that “morality is the advantage of the current government.” (Republic 339a) In giving this claim Thrasymachus implies that: 1. Morality is not objective. 2. Morality is defined as compliance with the laws given by the governing party. 3.
He says that justice, or right is simply what is in the best interest of the stronger (338c). When questioned by Socrates on this point, he explains that each type of government (the stronger party) enacts types of justice that are in its own best interest, and expect