Analysis of Thrasymachus' Argument in The Republic

Analysis of Thrasymachus' Argument in The Republic

Length: 651 words (1.9 double-spaced pages)

Rating: Excellent

Open Document

Essay Preview

More ↓
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.


"'Don't you know that some cities are ruled by tyranny, some by a democracy, and some by an aristocracy?'

'Of Course.'

'And in each city this element is stronger, namely, the ruler?'

'Certainly.'

'And each makes laws to its own advantage. Democracy makes democratic laws, tyranny makes tyrannical laws, and so on with the others. And they declare what they have made - what is to their own advantage - to be just for their subjects, and they punish anyone who goes against this as lawless and unjust. This, then, is what I say justice is, the same in all cities, the advantage of the established rule. Since the established rule is surely stronger, anyone who reasons correctly will conclude that the just is the same everywhere, namely, the advantage of the stronger.'"
Plato, Republic, Book 1, 338


Thrasymachus, tired of holding his tongue back, barges into the argument and asks Socrates exactly what justice is; since Socrates cannot answer Thrasymachus offers his perception:

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.


Now that I have reconstructed the argument and distinguished the premises from the conclusions, I will explain the logical structure of the argument.  By asserting that that rulers of cities are stronger than their subjects and that rulers declare what is just and unjust Thrasymachus is using a conjunction as his argument form in which both premises of the argument must be true for the conclusion to be true.  According to Thrasymachus both these premises are true therefore the conclusion is also true; later in the discussion Thrasymachus is proved wrong by Socrates.


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.

How to Cite this Page

MLA Citation:
"Analysis of Thrasymachus' Argument in The Republic." 123HelpMe.com. 27 Feb 2020
    <https://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=107596>.

Need Writing Help?

Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.

Check your paper »

Essay on Analysis of Thrasymachus

- Analysis of Thrasymachus Throughout “The Republic” there exist different characters that each holds a unique importance towards the development of certain philosophies, in this case, the meaning of “justice”. Thrasymachus is such a character, which could be considered a cynic by some; he plays an imperative role in the quest for the meaning of justice in the first book of “The Republic”. While Cephalus and his son Polemarchus are unsuccessful in providing Socrates with an adequate definition of justice, Thrasymachus presents himself annoyed with the dialogue between Socrates and Polemarchus, and furthermore demands an answer from Socrates in what he believes that justice is, instead of sim...   [tags: essays research papers]

Research Papers
1495 words (4.3 pages)

Essay about Plato's Response to Thrasymachus' Immoralist View of Justice

- Plato's Response to Thrasymachus' Immoralist View of Justice In Book 1 of the ‘Republic’, Socrates, in answer to the question ‘What is Justice?’ is presented with a real and dangerous alternative to what he thinks to be the truth about Justice. Julia Annas believes Thrasymachus thinks Justice and Injustice do have a real existence that is independent of human institutions; and that Thrasymachus makes a decided commitment to Injustice. She calls this view ‘Immoralism’: “the immoralist holds that there is an important question about justice, to be answered by showing that injustice is better.” This essay identifies this ‘Immoral’ view before understanding if and how Plato can respond to i...   [tags: Papers]

Research Papers
1494 words (4.3 pages)

Plato's Meno and Plato's Republic Essay

- 1. In Plato’s Meno, Socrates claims that all learning is actually recollection (80d – 86c). What prompts Socrates to make this claim, and what does he mean by it. As Socrates and Meno were trying to find out the essence of virtues, Socrates said: “The soul, then, as being immortal, and having been born again many times, and having seen all things that exist, whether in this world or in the world below, has knowledge of them all; and it is no wonder that she should be able to call to remembrance all that she ever knew about virtue, and about everything; for as all nature is akin, and the soul has learned all things1.” As he suggested, the soul has already known everything, and thus the acqui...   [tags: Socrate, philosophical analysis]

Research Papers
1624 words (4.6 pages)

Glaucon's Challenge and Plato's Theory of Justice in Plato's Republic Essay

- 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....   [tags: literary analysis]

Research Papers
1807 words (5.2 pages)

Analysis Of Plato 's The Book I Sets The Foundation For The Subsequent Scheme Of The Republic

- First, it is necessary to define what a form is and to establish the role Book I plays in the overall scheme of The Republic. A form, according to Plato’s Socrates, is the very essence of a thing and represents the most substantive part of reality. Book I sets the foundation for the subsequent nine books, and introduces the concept of justice as a main theme. Socrates and other characters, such as Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus are responsible for the original definitions of justice and the challenges defining it entails....   [tags: Plato, Soul, Aristotle, Epistemology]

Research Papers
1118 words (3.2 pages)

The Importance of Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic Essays

- The Importance of Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic      Dr. Malters’s comments: This student does two things quite remarkable for an undergraduate student. In his compact essay, not only does he display an in-depth understanding of complex perspectives on justice put forth by the protagonist Socrates, he deftly explains how Plato has artfully made rude objections by a seemingly minor character early in the dialogue function as a structuring device for nearly all the important ideas examined thereafter....   [tags: Plato Republic Essays]

Research Papers
932 words (2.7 pages)

Thrasymachus and Socrates Essay

- 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. The debate between Thrasymachus and Socrates begins when Thrasymachus gives his definition of justice in a very self-interested form....   [tags: Justice, Plato's The Republic]

Research Papers
771 words (2.2 pages)

Thrasymachus' Perspective on Human Nature Essay

- Thrasymachus' Perspective on Human Nature Thrasymachus' perspective of human nature is that we all seek to maximize power, profit and possessions. He gives the argument that morality is not an objective truth but rather a creation of the stronger (ruling) party to serve its own advantage. Therefore definitions of "just" and "unjust", "right" and "wrong", "moral" and "immoral" are all dependent upon the decree of the ruling party. Thrasymachus argues that acting "morally", in accordance with the ruling party, benefits the ruling party, while acting "immorally", injures the ruling party and benefits oneself....   [tags: Thrasymachus Morality Essays]

Research Papers
1305 words (3.7 pages)

Socrates and Thrasymachus in Republic Essay

- Socrates and Thrasymachus in Republic Socrates and Thrasymachus have a dialogue in Chapter 2 of Republic which progresses from a discussion of the definition of morality, to an understanding of the expertise of ruling, and eventually to a debate on the state of human nature. The Thrasymachian view of human nature has interesting implications in regards to Thomas Nagel’s ideal of egalitarianism, and Barbara Ehrenreich’s discontentment with the economic disparity in our democratic society. Although Thrasymachus is thwarted in conversation, Glaucon finds the outcome not entirely conclusive and directs Socrates to proving that morality, in and of itself, is a worthwhile pursuit....   [tags: Philosophy Philosophical Essays]

Research Papers
2124 words (6.1 pages)

Plato’s Republic: Justice and Injustice in Thrasymachus' Account Essay

- Plato’s Republic: Justice and Injustice in Thrasymachus' Account ABSTRACT: This paper has a two-fold task. First, I show that there are three types of individuals associated with the Thrasymachean view of society: (a) the many, i.e., the ruled or those exploited individuals who are just and obey the laws of the society; (b) the tyrant or ruler who sets down laws in the society in order to exploit the many for personal advantage; (c) the "stronger" individual (kreittoon) or member of the society who is detached from the many and aspires to become the tyrant....   [tags: Plato Republic]

Research Papers
6573 words (18.8 pages)

The characters also have good reasons to reject the first premise since there could be cases in which the subjects become more powerful than the ruler by influencing laws or even by overthrowing the ruler.

As far as the second premise the characters also have good reason to accept it since rulers are the ones who make laws. And whatever is within the law is considered just, but whatever is without the law is considered unjust. Therefore rulers indeed declare what is just and what is unjust.


According to the definition that an argument is valid if there are no cases were the premises are true but the conclusion is false, this argument is valid. If both premises were true then the conclusion would be true and the argument valid. If one of the premises were true but the other false then conclusion would be false and so the argument would be invalid. Lastly, if both premises were false then the conclusion would also be false and the validity of the argument is maintained.

Addressing the third question that asks if the argument is sound, soundness being that the argument has validity and true premises, I am forced to say that the argument is not sound. Although the argument is valid and the premises are said to be true by Thrasymachus, the premises end up being false as Socrates later shows us by getting Thrasymachus to agree to the following statement "No kind of knowledge seeks or orders what is advantageous to itself, then, but what is advantageous to the weaker, which is subject to it" which implies that rulers work for the advantage of their subjects. This proves the first premise to be false and therefore the argument cannot be sound.


The weaknesses of the argument are that it assumes to many things. First off Thrasymachus assumes, without supporting arguments, that rulers are always more powerful than their subjects, when in fact rulers is in the service of their subjects. The argument further assumes that ruler make laws for their advantage only, this being a gross generalization of rulers is not a strong premise for an argument. Thrasymachus never really supports his arguments with specific examples, this also adds to the arguments weakness.


On a further note I believe that the delivery of the argument was detrimental to the argument itself. Thrasymachus would have had a much better effect if he had remained cool about it all, instead he came into the argument hot headed and this could have had an affect on the defense of his argument.  Nonetheless, I have shown that even if Thrasymachus had delivered his argument in a more mannered fashion, his argument had false premises and was therefore not sound.

Return to 123HelpMe.com