More handpicked essays just for you.
What exactly does Thrasymachus's definition of justice amount to? Is his conception of justice correct (obviously, give reasons and arguments for your...
Platos republic essays on justice
Examples of justice in platos eyes
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Thrasymachus says justice is not vice but high-minded simplicity, injustice is not being low-minded rather having good judgement, inversely. In 348d, when Socrates asks whether being unjust is low-minded foolishness, Thrasymachus says he regards being unjust as good judgement, wise and virtuous, especially so for those "who are able to carry injustice through to the end, who can bring cities and communities of men under their power". Thrasymachus believes that being unjust is wise, virtuous and good; injustice in power and the ability to gain the power. And he believes justice is flawed and is nothing more than a means to gain and retain power. However, this argument can only support his idea that "injustice is more profitable", not that
In ancient Greece, retributive justice served as both a strict societal code and an expectation of the cosmos. In The Eumenides by Aeschylus, the Furies serve as the defenders of this justice, which is explored in depth during the Furies’ monologue as they pursue Orestes for his matricide. In order to fully understand this passage, the reader must first grasp the Furies’ sense of justice. The Furies require Orestes’ retribution for his matricide. Unlike the contemporary view of justice, their perception dictates strict punishment for the act without consideration of both sides of the argument. Throughout the Furies’ monologue, the beings disclose both their interpretation of justice and the drive they feel to protect that view.
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 ...
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
The concept of justice is an extremely vague and an ambiguous subject. Its characterization in the political arena, as well as in personal spheres may differ from person to person, as explored in Plato’s The Republic. The view of justice by Plato is understood by the need for structure and balance, represented by the groupings of the social classes, as well as of the soul; the incessant need for justice highlights the imperfections of humanity and demands balance and an ideal structure for societal convention.
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.
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.
Glaucon attempted to prove that injustice is preferable to justice. At first, Glacon agreed with Socrates that justice is a good thing, but implored on the nature of its goodness? He listed three types of “good”; that which is good for its own sake (such as playing games), that which is good is good in itself and has useful consequences (such as reading), and that which is painful but has good consequences (such as surgery). Socrates replied that justice "belongs in the fairest class, that which a man who is to be happy must love both for its own sake and for the results." (45d) Glaucon then reaffirmed Thrasymachus’s position that unjust people lead a better life than just people. He started that being just is simply a formality for maintaining a good reputation and for achieving one’s goals. He claimed that the only reason why a person would choose to be unjust rather than just due to the fear of punishment. This is supported by the story of the shepherd who became corrupted as a result of finding a ring which made him invisible. He took over the kingdom through murder and intrigue since he knew there could be no repercussions for his unjust actions. In addition, Adiamantus stated that unjust people did not need to fear divine punishment since appeals could be made to Gods’ egos via sacrifices. Finally, Glaucon gave an example of the extreme unjust person who has accumulated great wealth and power which he juxtaposed with an extreme moral man who is being punished unjustly for his crimes. Clearly, injustice is preferable to justice since it provides for a more fruitful life.
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.
Justice and morality can be viewed hand in hand as justice is based off a foundation of moral beliefs involving ethics, fairness and the law. The nature of justice and morality and how they are related has been debated heavily throughout philosophical history. When analyzing Nietzsche’s work On the Genealogy of Morals, and Thrasymachus in Plato’s, Republic it is evident that they have similarities and differences when one compares their individual accounts on the nature and genesis of justice and morality. Such similarities are their views on the nature of society and humans are naturally unequal. In addition, both philosophers agree with the statement that there can be no common good amongst society and that all moral values are socially created. On the other hand, although Nietzsche and Thrasymachus have these resemblances between their accounts, they each have unique personal differences which set them apart from each other.
Thrasymachus believes that the definition that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger. Thrasymachus definition quote