ipl-logo

Thrasymachus Definition Of Justice In Plato's Republic

423 Words2 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, …show more content…

This description has a more hands-on angle on ruling as it demands a ruler to be someone who is able to not only act, but do so to provide for the betterment or preservation of his city. Thrasymachus’ definition of justice as the advantage of the stronger directly contradicts this approach to leadership, as it simply demands that one’s subordinates act to please their superior, but that little to none must be done by said superior to please/benefit his subordinates. Furthermore, Thrasymachus states that no true professional makes mistakes when practicing that in which they claim to be proficient. On the other hand, Machiavelli’s explanation of virtu allows for a ruler to make moral mistakes, but justifies them as long as they are pursuant to the greater good of one’s state, and do not taint one’s appearance to his people. Although these approaches to both the difference in a just society and a just/virtuous ruler have innate differences which easily set them apart from one another, a few similarities can be found; namely, the subordination of a people to their

Show More
Related
342 Words | 2 Pages

the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame

Read More
762 Words | 4 Pages

Machiavelli argues the perfect prince will be both feared and loved by his people, and if unable to be both he will make himself feared and not hated. Machiavelli believes it is much safer to be feared than to be loved because people are less likely to offend and stand up against strong characters, also people are less concerned in offending a prince who has made himself loved. Accordingly, Machiavelli believes generosity is harmful to your reputation and the choice between being generous or stingy, merciful or cruel, honest or deceitful, should only be important if it aids the prince in political power. All in all, Machiavelli believes the ruler must be a great deceiver and do what is essential to uphold power over the

Read More
2106 Words | 9 Pages

Plato contests this view on justice because he believes doing harm to anyone would be an injustice. This theory leads to their conclusion the just man is one who is useful. Thrasymachus refers to justice in an egoistical manner, saying “justice is in the interest of the stronger” (The Republic, Book I). He believes injustice is virtuous and wise and justice is vice and ignorance, but Socrates disagrees with this statement as believes the opposing view. As a result of continual rebuttals against their arguments,

Read More
1371 Words | 6 Pages

Thrasymachus’s proposed statement that cities are unjust because the stronger rule the weaker to the advantage of the stronger is false because he, in fact, is arguing the opposite: it is just for the stronger to rule the weaker to the advantage of the stronger(Plato). My first argument for why the above statement is false is Thrasymachus’s claim that justice is the advantage of the established rule. This claim supports my reasoning for why the statement is false because an established rule requires strength; therefore, the advantage of the established rule is in fact the advantage of the stronger. An established rule does not come from the weak, as the weak are unable to impose their will upon the strong, which further enhances the idea that

Read More
732 Words | 3 Pages

In Book 1 of the republic, by Plato, we are introduced to two central figures in the argument of justice, Socrates and Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus claims that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates then asks if his understanding, that what is beneficial to the stronger is just and must be beneficial to the weaker people, to which Thrasymachus replies that no, this is not so. He explains that justice is that which obtains the advantage of the stronger.

Read More
538 Words | 3 Pages

In Book I of Plato’s Republic the famed philosopher Socrate debates with a trio of characters the very definition of justice and what it means to be just. The last to present his ideas of the three, Thrasymachus argues that justice is the interest of the strongest party, and that the weak can do right by serving the interest of said party. In essence, Thrasymachus proclaims that the lifestyle of the unjust is far more profitable than the lifestyle of the just, so long as one can get away with being unjust. In the reality painted by Thrasymachus, tyranny takes the place of democracy, as the individual who is not weak must see government as an obstacle to their rise to power and accumulation of wealth. The weak are then destined to be ruled over

Read More
239 Words | 1 Pages

• Thrasymachus claimed that justice is the interest of the stronger or rulers of society. Thrasymachus’ definitions of justice emphasizes the notion that moral values are not a part of the behavioral aspect of a person, but are socially formed and exercised which reflect the interests of ruling hierarchy. He quotes “in each city that is ruled tyrannically, democratically, or aristocratically, the ruling group is master, and each ruling group sets down laws for its own advantage.” Based on his hypothesis, it is presumably assumed that when those with power act in their own interest, they are exercising justice. However, Thrasymachus’ inconsistent stance on justice was confronted by Socrates when he questioned Thrasymachus if the rulers who

Read More
1169 Words | 5 Pages

Socrates say’s this cannot be true because most of the people in this world make mistakes in judging who the real friends are and who the enemies are. Thrasymachus’s impression of justice is that the stronger person decides what justice is. Thrasymachus definition of justice raises two questions which needed clarification. First question is what exactly

Read More
786 Words | 4 Pages

Justice In Plato’s The Republic, one argument that prevails, and that argument is “what is justice”? In this paper I will analyze the argument between Socrates and Thrasmachus in Book I Section III on the topic of justice. As Polemarchus concedes the argument to Socrates, Thrasymachus begins to criticize Socrates questions, and asks Socrates to answer them. This leads into Thrasymachus’s selfish definition of justice.

Read More
763 Words | 4 Pages

Justice has been overtaken by the “stronger party” as Thrasymachus would say. Rightful repercussions and/or has not been taken against people that have Since it is defined by both of these definitions alone. A perfect example that connects Thrasymachus to current times would be police brutality. As stated in the

Read More
1177 Words | 5 Pages

Justice is not the conception of the strong, while the weak are ruled by unjust rulers how Thrasymachus thought. Instead the ruler, rules accordingly establishing just laws even if they seem unfair. Rulers are infallible, thus creating just laws because if a ruler were to make an unjust law for the strong that would place the weak at an advantage creating a flaw in the argument. The ruler would want to create laws that are filled wisdom so that nobody would want to choose the life where an unjust men would be more profitable than a just men. In addition, Socrates demonstrates that an unjust men will not be able to live a more virtuous lifestyle than a just men due to the lack of learning that the unjust men has no recollection of, thus the just men will not be able to get the better of another just men.

Read More
571 Words | 3 Pages

Thrasymachus believes justice is the good of another-- doing what is of advantage to the more powerful. This is a revisionary definition because this is a perversion of the word justice as it is typically associated with morality by his peers. Justice is not defined by laws the more powerful have written, but is defined by what is advantageous to the more powerful as in the example of the eulogy therefore excluding obedience as Socrates assumes he means. He offers an implicit conception of where everyone must work towards the good of the most powerful. By defining this as justice there is no need for exercising self advancing interests in order to act just.

Read More
224 Words | 1 Pages

Plato believes justice can be something external which reflects on a principle of good. He also believed that the ruling is a craft (Barney, 2004). However, Thrasymachus recognized it as nothing more than the advantage of the stronger. This simply means that anyone who is weak will not be carried on further. Plato believes that Thrasymachus cannot practice the craft because he is

Read More
607 Words | 3 Pages

Considering how the Piraeus, Athens’ port area, contains individuals hailing from various locations, it would that such a place would be where Socrates encounters different definitions of justice. In Book One of Plato’s The Republic, Socrates challenges Cephalus’ belief that justice is simply being honest and paying back the dues that one owes to the gods and to his fellow men. By providing examples of where it would be unjust to repay one’s debts, Socrates refutes Cephalus’ definition of justice. In these scenarios, paying back those debts would pose a risk of harm to innocent people, which would be unjust since justice does not involve harming others.

Read More
832 Words | 4 Pages

Plato's Republic is centered on one simple question: is it always better to be just than unjust? This is something that Socrates addresses both in terms of political communities and the individual person. Plato argues that being just is advantageous to the individual independent of any societal benefits that the individual may incur in virtue of being just. I feel as if Plato’s argument is problematic. There are not enough compelling reasons to make this argument.

Read More

More about Thrasymachus Definition Of Justice In Plato's Republic

Related Topics

Open Document