Analysis Of Thrasymachus View Of The Nature Of Justice

Thrasymachus’ View of the Nature of Justice

In the Republic by Plato, Thrasymachus argues that justice is what the strongest define it as in order to benefit themselves. Thrasymachus is skeptical of commonly-held views of justice because he believes that a just person receives less and is unhappier than one who is unjust. According to Thrasymachus’ view, people should act unjustly, but have the reputation of one who is just. I agree partly with Thrasymachus’ view of justice because justice is often the way he describes it as “the advantage of the stronger,” but that does not mean that is how it ought to be (338c). I will briefly assess Thrasymachus’ view, but first I will explain Thrasymachus ' view about the nature of justice and the reasons

Therefore, by not paying one’s taxes or disobeying another law, citizens would be punished causing many people to act justly out of fear of suffering for injustice. Thrasymachus replies that if injustice is done on a large enough scale, rather than partly, then injustice is better than justice. Thrasymachus differentiates large scale injustice from small scale by saying this, “If someone commits only one part of injustice and is caught, he’s punished…such partly unjust people are temple-robbers, kidnappers, housebreakers, robbers, and thieves. But when someone, in addition to appropriating their possessions, kidnaps and enslaves the citizens as well…he is called happy and blessed” (344c). Therefore, in addition to “appropriating” a large-scale injustice is done when the person “kidnaps” the people that could punish him. And Thrasymachus’ reason to do such a thing is because, “injustice, if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than injustice” (344c). For injustice, according to Thrasymachus, brings happiness (343c). I will now briefly assess Thrasymachus’ view on the nature of

The US government is set up so that there are checks and balances so as to attempt to decrease the likelihood that someone would gain the power to take over the country. For instance, there are three parts in government to perform these checks and balances: executive, legislative, and judicial. Whether the US government succeeds at stopping justice that is “the advantage of the stronger” or not is beyond the scope of this paper, but how the US government is set up shows that they wanted to attempt to protect the country from becoming what Thrasymachus described justice as.(383c). Therefore, in reality there are cities or governments that make laws for their own advantage, but that does not mean that is how it ought to be. When Thrasymachus is describing how to get away with suffering from injustice he only takes into account human form of punishment. But if there is a judgement by God after one dies, then there is another form of punishment that Thrasymachus has to address. And if there is a punishment from God, then obeying Him is how one ought to live. Which, of course, relies upon worldviews, so my critique is that he should address the eternal consequences of temporal actions. If that means he does not think there is eternal consequences because there is no God, then it would be helpful for the