Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
compare between socrates and plato
plato's concept of Justice
socrates vs thrasymachus
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: compare between socrates and plato
Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, Cleitophon, and Socrates’ heated debate over the nature of justice in Book 1 of The Republic of Plato comes to an intriguing point of argument wherein both parties go back and forth over justice being the “advantage of the stronger”(15). It is clear that Socrates presents a more sound and logical counterargument as he calls upon the duties and abilities of professionals in their fields and how they benefit not only themselves but humanity at large as well. His skill in argument serves him well and the clear victor in the debate as the textual evidence is easily observable both in Plato’s presentation of the squabble and in Thrasymachus’ responses.
Thrasymachus begins this debate by claiming, “the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (15). He provides further explanation, while introducing the different ruling groups of cities, where each “sets down laws for its own advantage,” which is he claims is “just for the ruled”. These claims are clearly presented in spite, following Thrasymachus’ gross criticizing of Socrates’ method of argument, while referring to him “disgusting” (16). Socrates grants “that the just is something of advantage,” he questions whether it is necessarily the
advantage of “the stronger” (16). He goes on to prove that the just is not solely of advantage to the strong and powerful, but can also be a disadvantage to them; an advantage to the weaker. Thrasymachus to concede that rulers can set down laws incorrectly, rendering it disadvantageous to them, and that the ruled class carrying out what is set down by the rulers. Socrates then concludes: “according to [Thrasymachus’] argument, its just to do not only what is advantageous for the stronger but also the oppo...
... middle of paper ...
...the best for what it has been sent over” (21). This distinction in the art of the shepherd, like all the other distinctions and corrections Socrates has made in response to Thrasymachus’ argument, proves that the art, in this case sheep-herding, is mutually advantageous to both the shepherd and the sheep, and that nature of the art renders it just.
It is clear that Socrates had the upper hand in the argument over justice and advantage throughout the seemingly heated debate. His logical conclusions extending from Thrasymachus’ own argument, adequately dismantles his opponents belief of the nature of justice. Both Plato’s description of the flow of the argument, and Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cleitophon’s reactions to Socrates’ words serve as ample evidence that Socrates’ definition of justice is far more convincing and well-argued than that of his opponents.
Upon the summation of the debate between Polemarchus and Socrates, Thrasymachus enters into the fray. He states that justice “is nothing other than advantage of the stronger” (Republic 338c), and also that the greatest life is that of perfect injustice, to be found in the life of a tyrant. This definition leaves no room for the common good because it creates a life of compet...
...purpose is “to unmask the hypocrisy and show how the meaning of Justice is being perverted” . He is not prepared to argue, leaving Socrates victorious. Here, Socrates’s method of argumentative questioning is insufficient and naïve against a stubborn, powerful and philosophically certain moral skeptic. This is confirmed by the change in investigative approach in the latter books. Thus the ‘earlier’ Plato cannot adequately respond to Thrasymachus’s immoralist view of Justice.
In Chapter 2 of Republic, Glaucon uses the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd to portray a pessimistic view of human nature. Plato, the author of Republic, uses his brother Glaucon to tell the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd. We are led to believe that Plato takes the myth and its implications on human nature very seriously by use of a personal character. The argument, originally given by Thrasymachus, contends that at the root of our human nature we all yearn for the most profit possible. It also contends that any man will act immorally if given free reign. The theory proves unplausible due to circularity in the argument and implications that prove untrue.
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.
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
This paper highlights a few fallacies that surround Socrates’ ideas about acting against unjust government.
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.
Hourani, George. Thrasymachus' Definition of Justice in Plato's Republic. 2. 7. Focus Publishing, 1962. eBook. .
...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.
Justice is the driving force for the Athenian empire and the people of Melos. It acts as the catalyst for the actions of both parties in the dialogue produced by Thucydides. However, the Athenians and the Melians have radically different views regarding the idea of justice and its intended role. The envoys sent from Athens have a plain view of justice. To them, the strong conquer, and the meek effectively roll over and accept their fate. These people view this as a simple fact of life. In response, the Melian council thinks of justice as a force that rewards the faithful and hopeful. Both parties feel that they encapsulate the notion of justice, and the direct result of these opposing ideas leads to a debate between the envoy and council. This debate shows how neither view of justice is particularly favored over the other. Rather, it is the difference in power that manages to give the edge to the Athenians.
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.
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.
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.
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
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil. This is where Plato’s argument that justice is in one’s self-interest is disturbed. This paper will discuss the idea that justice is not in one’s self-interest, and thus does not pay.