ipl-logo

What Does Thrasymachus Say About The Nature Of Justice

970 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Topics in aristotle's nicomachean ethics

In book I of Plato’s Republic, Socrates and Thrasymachus discuss the nature of justice. After Socrates deconstructs Polemarchus’s notion of justice, Thrasymachus eagerly interjects, posing a startling claim that initially perplexed me. Nonetheless, through class discussion and my own analysis, I ultimately gained a deeper understanding of Thrasymachus’s insights.
Once Socrates and Polemarchus abandon Polemarchus’s definition of justice, Thrasymachus inserts himself into their conversation. After insulting Socrates for neglecting to reveal his own views on the topic, Thrasymachus supplies a new definition, confidently asserting that “justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (15). Upon reading Thrasymachus’s claim, …show more content…

While evaluating Thrasymachus’s argument in class, I realized that his ideas are founded on the premise that there must be a sense of meaning and purpose behind the laws implemented by ruling bodies. As part of our class discussion, we reviewed Clitophon’s interjection to Thrasymachus’s argument, which accounts for the inherent fallibility of rulers. He declares that Thrasymachus intended to say that “what is advantageous for the stronger is what the stronger believes to be advantageous for him” (17). This addition would clarify Thrasymachus’s definition by accounting for rulers’ natural liability to err. Yet, Thrasymachus rejects this modification to his argument, implying that it is irrational to assume that an individual is stronger in his moment of error. From here, Thrasymachus proceeds to explain that his definition alludes to the most precise definition of a ruler, meaning that “a ruler, to the extent that he is a ruler, never makes errors and unerringly declares what is best for himself” (17-18). According to our class discussion, Thrasymachus’s ideas are grounded in the assumption that a true ruler possesses relevant expertise. While a ruler in title only is prone to mistakes, a ruler with the appropriate expertise can perfectly serve his own advantage. Through this lens, all laws implemented by a true ruler are purposeful and beneficial to the ruler. The notion that laws must be rooted in reason and purpose made Thrasymachus’s argument more appealing to

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
650 Words | 3 Pages

For Aristotle states, “As long as this is unclear, the best regime must necessarily be unclear as well; for it is appropriate for those who govern themselves best on the basis of what is available to them to act in the best manner, provided nothing occurs contrary to reasonable expectation” (Pol. VII.i 1323al). In other words, rulers must act justly in order to be considered ‘good’

Read More
1029 Words | 5 Pages

Thrasymachus continues to claim his position but in a modified form of his first argument, after Socrates commented. Being unjust, Thrasymachus thinks, is better than being just because it 's stronger and leads to a more happy life. As before he, he only takes into consideration only the advantages or disadvantages of being just, and he doesn 't discuss what 's justice or how it plays a role in people. Essentially, this definition is an extreme extension of the previous one. The example he gives that a tyrant gets happy through being unjust and controlling draws us back to his first argument saying that ‘ruling being the advantage of the stronger '.

Read More
2106 Words | 9 Pages

In the Republic, Plato confers with other philosophers about the true definition of justice. Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus relay their theories on justice to Plato, when he inquires as to what justice is. Cephalus believes only speaking the truth and paying one’s debts is the correct definition of justice (The Republic, Book I). However, Plato refutes this with an example of a friend who has lost his wits and would be caused harm by repayment of a debt. This leads to Polemarchus’ view on justice, doing harm to one’s enemies and helping one’s friends.

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
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
634 Words | 3 Pages

In a democracy, such was his formulation of justice because he strongly envisions citizen of higher knowledge to rule over the ordinary people. Through this view, he creates his physis, in which the stronger are described as dominating the weak by an immutable law of nature, and in which is characterized more powerful than law or custom irresistible once it is arouse (Cawkwell, 1997). For him, common people do not have the capacity to provide security for themselves and maintain order when a man of higher knowledge is not in action. Thucydides harks back to the traditional view of nature as something wild and always in need of the trainers’ strong hand (Woodruff, 1993). For him, man has the tendency of being uncontrollable which is why they need the guidance of someone from a higher status.

Read More
1382 Words | 6 Pages

Socrates believes that justice benefits the just, but also benefits the city (other people) too. He is faced with a seemingly simple choice, escape Athens or remain in prison and be sentenced to death. Socrates’ central argument against escaping his circumstances is twofold. First, Socrates argues that “one must never do wrong.” (49b)

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
1302 Words | 6 Pages

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.

Read More
763 Words | 4 Pages

In Plato’s The Republic” written in 380 BC, Plato introduces two characters Polemarchus and Thrasymachus who hold two separate opinions on Justice. They both are made to give their own opinions on Justice by Socrates. Both standpoints accurately represent Justice in sirtain situations. The word justice can be represented in many ways because it holds a broad meaning. They are covering two completely different aspects of Justice.

Read More
1470 Words | 6 Pages

In effect, Thrasymachus tries to invalidate the entire notion that justice should be a guiding moral principle: a strict or universal definition within these terms is not only unnecessary but also factually incorrect. This view presents an pessimistic position on the nature of humanity, and seems to suggest that there are no intrinsically good ways to live one’s life or structure a society. One could characterize these beliefs as a kind of nihilism. The idea of justice, from this point of view, is purely used under pragmatic

Read More
314 Words | 2 Pages

Socrates never comes to a true and complete answer to any of his questions. His goal is to inspire others to pursue higher thought so that they might become better people with a better society. In The Republic Socrates follows this pattern and by the end has yet to come to an understanding on what exactly justice is. Instead he has some overall assumptions on the subject. He believes that justice is for the benefit of all peoples and that a good ruler is the one that seeks the betterment for the people without the goal of monetary gain.

Read More
770 Words | 4 Pages

When it comes to justice, Polemarchus believes that justice is “…helping friends and harming enemies.”. Socrates questions this point of view because according to Polemarchus’ view point, only the people who are close to him and in his circle of friends would be worthy of any kind of Justice. Polemarchus is wrong in this viewpoint because if only the people that you know who are of your similar social status and you interact with on a day to day basis are considered friends, what of those that you do not know? Or what of those who are not of your social status, that you do not interact with? Socrates questions this by asking, “Do you mean by friends those who seem to be good to an individual, or those who are, even if they don't seem to be, and similar with enemies?”.

Read More
1467 Words | 6 Pages

In Plato’s Republic, Socrates and his peers attempt to define justice. Unlike the definitions that his peers give, Socrates is searching to define justice as a structure, not a set of behaviors. Socrates uses a tripartite city-soul analogy to define justice and show that it is found when there is harmony between the three parts of the city—guardians, auxiliaries, producers—mirrored to the three parts of the soul—reason, spirit, appetite. Although Socrates provides a well-structured account of justice in an attempt to demonstrate that there cannot be social justice—in the city—if people don’t first bring internal justice—in the soul—in themselves, he has a notable contradiction in his premises. In Socrates’ ideal city it is a necessary condition of an auxiliary acting in a just way that he must cause any producers who get out of hand, or

Read More

More about What Does Thrasymachus Say About The Nature Of Justice

Related Topics

Open Document