Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Explain Plato’s conception of justice
Plato's concept of Justice
Explain Plato’s conception of justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
It is Thrasymachus’ claim that, what is just, is “simply the interest of the stronger” (Cahn & Markie 2012); this paper will aim to argue in favor of this view, while refuting Socrates’ claims. My argument for this claim has x parts. The first part will outline Thrasymachus’ claim. The second will outline Socrates’ response and claim to the other’s view of justice. The third part will argue in favor of Thrasymachus by refuting Socrates responses. I will explain why each individual’s premises are either right or wrong with practical examples. Forth, having successfully reconstructed Thrasymachus’ argument, and countering Socrates’, I will reconstruct the pessimistic view of justice with added premises and challenge my own conclusion with questions …show more content…
It is his opinion that Socrates misuses others’ insight and fails to adequately come to a conclusion himself. In anger and great self-given purpose challenges Socrates and declares that he himself knows the answer to justice. For Thrasymachus the strong are those who decide what justice is, that is, those who are in power define justice. The first premise is that “Some cites are ruled by tyrants, and others by a democracy, and others by an aristocracy?” (Cahn & Markie 2012), this is simply to state that all types of governments have someone(s) in power. Next, “[I]n every city does not superior strength reside in the ruling body?” (Cahn & Markie 2012), premise three is “each regime has its laws framed to suit its own interest” (Cahn & Markie 2012). Together premise two and three simply state that the rulers are the ones that make up the laws because they are those who govern the populous. Premise four, “ these regimes have pronounced that what is for the interest of themselves is just for their subjects” (Cahn & Markie 2012). With his premises in order Thrasymachus states his …show more content…
Socrates fails to understand that when these acts are committed it is in the rule’s understanding that these acts are just. Even more so, if such acts prove to be harmful it allows for not only the ruler to correct his mistakes but also creates a case that other sovereigns might use to follow. In this, it can be said that when the ruler does unjust acts they actually amount to greater just acts, which these, acts originally unjust, begin flourish in to beneficial and just acts. The heart of this argument rest on the fact that the end results are looked at rather then the original beginnings of the act; these original harmful acts to the sovereign, through corrections and future use, become beneficial to that ruler and thus remain a just act. Starting off as concepts that are just, but actually unjust; through trial, error, and corrections as well as creating lessons for future use become just again and thus remain just acts to that ruler. They are only unjust for a fraction amount of time compared to the rest of its
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.
Thrasymachus approaches Socrates, the main character of Republic and most of Plato's work, during a conversation on the topic of morality. The aggressive Thrasymachus interjects his own opinion; morality is "the advantage of the stronger." (Republic 338c) Upon clarification, Thrasymachus lays out his view of socially created moral relativism, as opposed to Socrates' moral objectivism. Thrasymachus illustrates his view by citing how different types of government create laws serving purposes specific to each government, "a democracy passing democratic laws, a dictatorship making dictatorial laws… In doing so each government makes it clear that what is right and moral for its subjects is what is to its own advantage." (Republic 338e)
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
In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
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
In 399 BC, Socrates, the great philosopher in ancient Greece, was put to death under the hands of his Athenian fellow-citizens to whom he had a strong attachment, after a final vote with over two-thirds of jurymen against him. We cannot experience the situation where Socrates gave his final argument in the court of law. From Plato’s Apology, we admire Socrates’ brilliant rhetoric and rigorous logic, while at the same time feel pity for him and indignant with those ruthless jurymen. However, the question of what exactly caused his death and why was Socrates, such a remarkable thinker sentenced to death in the very society that valued democracy the most is not easy and straightforward to answer. There are multiple elements involved that finally caused this tragedy in which “a person of high moral principle is confronted step by step with a situation from which there is no escape” (38). First of all, the moral principle and belief in divinity held by Socrates are inconsistent with those of the Athenian society, implying the very crimes charged upon Socrates were not completely groundless. Secondly, the imperfect juridical system of Athens played a role in causing this tragedy. What’s more, Socrates himself, could have offered better defense in the court, also had a hand in his own death by his stubbornness regarding to his own interpretation of wisdom and piety. His rebuttal, though brilliant and insightful, was not persuasive enough to move the fellow-citizens for his wrong approach and sophistry in his cross-examination on Meletus.
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.
Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.
Thrasymachus starts off by stating his conclusion: justice is the advantage of the stronger. He then gives Socrates two premises that he uses to arrive at his conclusion first that rulers of cities are stronger than their subjects and second that rulers declare what is just and unjust by making laws for their subjects to follow. Since justice is declared by the stronger then it must surely be a tool for the stronger.
Socrates reached his conclusion based on the following premises. First was we must not do any wrong (unjust) willingly. Second was we should not do unjust in return of unjust. Third was we must keep on our agreement that is just. Fourth was we must follow the law with which we are in agreement with. Fifth was Laws are just and the sixth was we must respect the judicial decision as not respecting the law produces unjust to law and the People.
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.
Socrates questions Thrasymachus on why he adds the detail of the stronger to his definition of justice. Socrates than asks, if it is just for everyone to follow the laws that the ruler has made, if the ruler has made unjust laws. His argument is that people, even rulers make mistakes. This meaning that if a ruler makes mistakes on the law does that still make it just. It is a very conflicting argument to think about, if the rules are not just then why should they be followed but the rules were also put in place by someone who is supposed to know the difference between just and unjust and choose correctly. This relates to what Socrates says during his trial portrayed in the Apology. Socrates claims
For Plato’s thesis – justice pays – to be validated, he has to prove two things, the first being that justice is inherently good. In