Thrasymachus Definition Of Justice In Plato's Republic

In Book One of Plato’s Republic, Socrates begins his quest for the meaning of justice. In engaging his friends in philosophical discussions on the simple questions, “What is justice?” and “Is it always better to be just than unjust?” Socrates comes to the realization that the answer is not simple, but complex in that justice to one person can be injustice to another. The aged Cephalus says money has given him advantages in life and allowed him “to tell the truth and pay one’s debts (331 b). But Socrates believes this is an inaccurate portrait of what justice is. The discussion that follows of the definition of justice is between the opposing views of Thrasymachus and Socrates. This paper will argue that Thrasymachus’ definition of justice is incoherent and invalid through the examination and explanation of Socrates’ rebuttals as well as the opposing arguments made by both men and provide commentary to support agreement or disagreement with the argument discussed.

It’s his belief justice exists only in the form that benefits the ruler or the one in charge, and anyone in charge has the ability to alter the meaning of justice if the change serves their best interests (343c). Thrasymachus follows with a good example in support of his claim stating that a man who wants to succeed is willing to cheat and be unjust and as a result, he will be the best and will be better than the just man (343d). He uses the example of how the unjust man gains more than a just man because the just man pays his taxes and would not try to take advantage of others. Therefore injustice prevails over the just who are the