ipl-logo

Thrasymachus's Theory Of Justice Analysis

987 Words4 Pages

Both of these are virtues in their own right and though we don’t really expect virtues to clash, these two do exactly that and this clash gives rise to a bigger problem. People expect those in positions of power to be both just and merciful at the same time without realizing that it is near impossible to do so. For example, a judge who is about to deliver a verdict to a criminal convicted of a minor crime who genuinely appears repentant is expected to do the right thing and sentence him with an appropriate punishment and at the same time show a little mercy towards the criminal and reduce the sentence. Most people fail to realize that justice and mercy are not the same and this puts said person in a position of power in a no-win situation. If he tries to be merciful and reduces the sentence, he is seen as lenient, while if he tries to be just and sentences the criminal to his just desserts, he is seen to be as strict or harsh. As mentioned previously, these two concepts are intrinsically different and are at odds with each other, therefore leading to ethical conflicts, which then raises the question …show more content…

He believed that justice was decided based on the interests of those with power. Rulers and governments would only make rules and laws that would benefit them and there was no justice except in favour of power. Again, the strong had complete control over what was considered right and wrong. Those in power would only introduce laws that would further their own agendas and those who dared to violate those laws were harshly punished in the name of justice. Thrasymachus clashed with Socrates in terms of ideology about justice. He believed that injustice brought happiness and considered it to be a source of strength and contended with Socrates saying that an individual who is unjust is superior in both intelligence and character to an individual who is just by

Show More
Related
648 Words | 3 Pages

He held that upright life is the only life worth living. To him, justice was a matter of knowledge and hence, a truth aspect. Meanwhile, he honored and acknowledged his duty to obey the Laws of the state. From Socrates' perspective, Laws are absolute.

Read More
436 Words | 2 Pages

In Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus presented several arguments in favor of the position that “Might makes right.” Presenting his first argument, he stated “Listen, then. I say justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger.” By the stronger, he meant the people who establish the rules in the country. Thrasymachus explained that any type of government, as it could be democracy or tyranny, has its own rules and the person who doesn’t obey to those rules will be considered unjust and therefore punished.

Read More
643 Words | 3 Pages

In Plato’s, The Republic, Book I, Socrates tries to prove to Thrasymachus “whether just people also live better and are happier than unjust ones” (352d). He argues that everything has a predisposed proficiency at a function, and that this functions are performed well by the peculiar virtue and badly by means of its vice (353a-353d) . The point of this paper is to present Socrates argument and evaluate it to the best of my ability. This argument can be categorized as an inductive generalization. Socrates states that the function of anything is what it alone can do or what it does best.

Read More
215 Words | 1 Pages

From Thrasymachus point of view I don’t see how he could believe that it’s the right thing to commit injustice whenever given the chance. By saying that Thrasymachus is basically saying that justice is to the advantage of rulers and injustice is to the advantage to the subjects. This is something I do not agree

Read More
164 Words | 1 Pages

In his canonical work The Republic, Plato grapples with the topic of justice. He provides several alternative theories of justice throughout the dialectic through the literary manipulation of the characters in the piece. The characters of Thrasymachus (whose opinion has been the subject of lengthy debate ) and Socrates both provide accounts of justice that fall into a three-part typology of ethics provided by Lee C. McDonald in his “Three Forms of Political Ethics” (1978). In this essay, I attempt to make two claims concurrently: (1) that interpretations of both characters’ descriptions of justice fall into each of the categories that McDonald provides and can be used to elucidate McDonald’s claims about each of the three categories, and

Read More
732 Words | 3 Pages

Finally, Socrates claims that the unjust man is ignorant, weak and bad. Socrates argument is effective in the way that he does not shatter Thrasymachus’ argument without reason, he is given many examples that change his way of thinking. Thrasymachus is told to put his ‘set in stone’ ideas under different situations, and once he does, he can clearly see that he should not have been so stubborn, as soon as he does so, he can see that his arguments aren’t suited to all situations. By the end of the argument, Thrasymachus isn’t so much debating the definition of justice, as he is defining the required traits to be a ruler of

Read More
1280 Words | 6 Pages

Socrates & Snowden Socrates was a true believer that true pleasure only comes when individuals live a moral life. He believed that an individual’s inner life, or the soul, is the most important part of life. Each person must keep his or her soul healthy, by seeking truth, self-knowledge, justice, and goodness. Socrates believed that any soul in search of fame, wealth, and power becomes ignorant, sickly, and weak (Claudia, 270). He was concerned with strengthening his inner self by examining and criticizing it.

Read More
1300 Words | 6 Pages

He didn't feel like he knew it all but he could not have agreed with what any of them said. He always had questions for the claims they made and opposite thoughts to all the claims they made as to what constitutes justice and being a just person. I agree with socrates and the way he thinks that, justice definitely leads to friendship and a sense of common purpose, and polemachus definition of justice harming your friends and benefiting your enemies definitely goes against this, and proves Socrates definition of injustice to be true. That it causes civil war and hatred.

Read More
1382 Words | 6 Pages

Socrates bases this view of justice on the worth of living a good life. “And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted by unjust actions” (47e) If we corrupt our soul with injustice, our life would not be worth living, therefore one must never commit an injustice. “When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, one should fulfill it.”(49e) It is this agreement with the Laws that Socrates would be violating, if he were to

Read More
1285 Words | 6 Pages

Socrates presented justice as a way for a better life through the steps that can take someone there. He mentioned the steps as wisdom, courage, and moderation. He stated that these things will lead to justice, however he did not define what justice is. Socrates might have never known himself and wasn’t serious about defining the word. They stat that “after having considered moderation, courage, and prudence, this is what’s left over in the city, justice” (Bloom 111; 433c).

Read More
423 Words | 2 Pages

In the Republic, Thrasymachus defines justice as that which is done for the advantage of the stronger. This definition clearly implies that justice is a one track road, which is only required of that which can only be referred to as the weaker party in any given situation. Upon a brief exchange with Socrates, Thrasymachus elaborates on his definition; adding that some cities are ruled tyrannically, some aristocratically, and others democratically. In such cities, the stronger party is not he who is of superior physical strength, as Socrates jokes, but he who is in the position to rule (this then led to a personal worry of mine regarding what would then be deemed the weaker/stronger party in a democracy, for if a city is governed by the people,

Read More
553 Words | 3 Pages

After speaking with Cephalus about justice, Socrates moves on to speak with his son, Polemarchus. Initially, Polemarchus’ definition is similar to that of his father’s. Polemarchus believes that justice means that you should help friends, and harm enemies. Knowing Socrates, he clearly was not going to willingly accept this definition; there are always exceptions.

Read More
1021 Words | 5 Pages

It is challenging to lead a private life while truly fighting for justice. A man can fight for justice through examining the greatest issues in human nature that Socrates found essential to the private life. However, this knowledge can have the biggest effect when brought into the public life such as through teachings. These two things can then combine to reflect how the state should be changed. Socrates sometimes crossed this line himself, even if unknowingly.

Read More
1006 Words | 5 Pages

Socrates in his dialogue was pushing further with the idea that it is worse to do injustice than to suffer injustice, a clime which was objected by Polus. For Polus says that many people who do injustice are happy, but Socrates insists otherwise. Socrates focuses on Eudaimonia, which means happiness, as the main objective to reach. Thus the people who do injustice like kings and tyrants are unhappy. Socrates then asks Polus which is more shameful doing injustice or suffering it, and Polus replies that doing injustice is more shameful.

Read More
1553 Words | 7 Pages

Two ethical definitions and two ethical theories will be applied.

Read More

More about Thrasymachus's Theory Of Justice Analysis

Related Topics

Open Document