ID: 107269629 PHI 105 05/17/2014 1) In The Republic, Thrasymachus and Socrates debate on the advantage of justice. The main question was is Justice simply to the advantage of the stronger? While Thrasymachus defines justice as “the advantage of the stronger” Socrates finds flaws to his definition and undermine Thrasymachus’ notion of strength. According to Thrasymachus, Justice is: “the advantage of the established government, and correct reasoning will conclude that the just is the same everywhere, the advantage of the stronger.” According to Socrates, “…There is no kind of knowledge that considers or commands the advantage of the stronger, but rather of what is weaker and ruled by it.” He undermines Thrasymachus’ points by taking several analogies, the captain of a ship who seeks the advantage of the sailors and in the case of medicine they seek the advantage of the body and not the practitioner. To explain his analogies Socrates states: “No other ruler in any kind of government, insofar as he is a ruler, seeks what is to his own advantage…” However, according to him “He seeks only that which is to the advantage of his subject, who is the proper concern of his craft…” Socrates defines Justice, as “a virtue of soul”. Justice according to him is when someone does good actions and uses his labor and knowledge to gain from the leverage of a common purpose in society. Contrary to that, injustice is where a person is working alone to attain his own goal. According to Smith, the main notion that can keep society organized is competition. On the account of the politica... ... middle of paper ... ...people liberty to behave in the way that they perceived to be good. Since it encourages liberty of the single individual, people will be able to develop their human faculties and just like Mills opinion it will be better in the long run. Aristotle and Mills view on freedom are very similar. Mills think that people should have the liberty to do what is good according to them if they are not harming others. "Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain..." Just like Mills, Aristotle thinks that people should be able to choose activities that will bring them happiness. However, their views are also different. Unlike Mills, Aristotle view happiness not only as a feeling but to be happy people should live their life also with virtue.
What is justice? In Plato’s, The Republic this is the main point and the whole novel is centered around this question. We see in this novel that Socrates talks about what is justice with multiple characters.In the first part of Book 1 of The Republic, Socrates questions conventional morality and attempts to define justice as a way for the just man to harm the unjust man (335d) ; however, Thrasymachus fully rejects this claim, and remarks that man will only do what is in his best interest, since human nature is, and should be ruled by self-interest, and he furthers this argument by implying that morality, and thus justice, is not what Socrates had suggested, but rather that it is simply a code of behavior exacted on man by his ruler. Thrasymachus begins his argument by giving his definition of justice. He says that justice, or right is simply what is in the best interest of the stronger (338c). When questioned by Socrates on this point, he explains that each type of government (the stronger party) enacts types of justice that are in its own best interest, and expect
In Plato’s Gorgias Callicles states that “the stronger sort of man” can take advantage of the weaker. When he states this I believe he was talking about himself in general because in his eyes he saw himself as strong. He also states “Natural justice is that the better and wiser man should rule over and have more than the inferior.” He states it this way because Socrates gives him an example of how a slave can be stronger physically than his master, and therefore can be considered stronger and take advantage of his master, in which Callicles disagrees with. Thrasymachus states “…justice is nothing else than the interest of the strong…” which goes hand in hand with what Callicles states, and I believe they are both are in agreement towards the stronger being better. However, Thrasymachus believes in the benefit of the stronger “people” as in the society, because he states “stronger” while Callicles believes in the “stronger man.” Thrasymachus explains that the rules benefit the people, it is unjustly to just benefit oneself, but those are the people who can take over the people who act justly. To act just, is to sacrifice your desires, and be taken advantage of indefinitely.
Plato’s Republic focuses on one particular question: is it better to be just or unjust? Thrasymachus introduces this question in book I by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests. Therefore, he claims that justice is “stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice” (Plato, Republic 344c). Plato begins to argue that injustice is never more profitable to a person than justice and Thrasymachus withdraws from the argument, granting Plato’s response. Glaucon, however, is not satisfied and proposes a challenge to Plato to prove that justice is intrinsically valuable and that living a just life is always superior. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge.
In the On liberty, Mill also highlights the aspect of individuality as one of the elements of well-being. John Stuart Mill points out the inherent value of individuality, since individuality is by definition the thriving of the human person through the higher pleasures. He argues that a safe society ought to attempt to promote individuality as it is the pre- requisite for creativity and diversity. Therefore Mill concludes that actions themselves don’t matter, rather the person behind the action and the action together are valuable. However on the limits to the authority of society over the individual, generally he holds that a person should be left as free to pursue his own interests as long as this does not harm the interests of others. In
In the Republic, Plato discusses many topics, including the issue of justice versus injustice (Plato 34). Plato’s argument indicates that justice works interchangeably with proper ethics (Plato 35). According to Plato, in order for a person to live the “best life”, they must live with justice and ethics (Plato 35). These two terms are similar in the sense that it is subjective to each individual. One’s definition of justice results from their own beliefs of ethics, which varies from person to person. Plato claims that doing “justice” is the better way of living, even if it brings misfortune in the end (Plato 34-35). This brings up the ethical dispute that misfortunes from justice is better than rewards earned from injustice. However, as seen in modern day, there is still no universal idea as to whether or not something is justifiable or abides by the ethical conduct that is expected. Often times, an action may seem justified to one individual while it seems unjustified to another. In order for someone to get what they want, they don’t think about their actions, whether or not it is following their ethical codes. In this case, the idea of “justice” and “ethics” is purely a mirage of the mind that people created so that they have a reason to feel good about themselves. In today’s society, many people get away with doing “injustice” while the actions of “justice” are disregarded. The definition of “justice” and “ethics” is still open-ended as demonstrated by justice system of the United States. There are people getting away with crimes and innocent people being put into prisons. Many times, these cases communicate the racial discrimination in the states.
Upon the summation of the debate between Polemarchus and Socrates, Thrasymachus enters into the fray. He states that justice “is nothing other than advantage of the stronger” (Republic 338c), and also that the greatest life is that of perfect injustice, to be found in the life of a tyrant. This definition leaves no room for the common good because it creates a life of compet...
Thrasymachus said in a meeting with Cephalus, which many of us have attended, that justice are only made to advantage the ruling class and not as profitable as injustice. (The Republic I, 344a-d), which most of us have disagreed and only Socrates defended justice and convinced him. Today let us think only of justice in Socrates’ case. Are we today going to be
In Plato’s Republic Thrasymachus is arguing with Socrates about “what is justice?” Thrasymachus argues that might makes right. He believes that justice is made only by those in power, to serve those in power. The morality of the “lesser” people is a reflection of what the powerful people have set as the laws to follow. In that sense, might makes right. The people with the most power set the rules, and the citizens follow them, making it right. He also believes that the God’s do not care about humans because they do not enforce justices. Socrates does not follow the “might makes right” belief. Socrates argues that there are times that the people in charge make rules that do not benefit them. Then Thrasymachus says a “true ruler” would not
Hourani, George. Thrasymachus' Definition of Justice in Plato's Republic. 2. 7. Focus Publishing, 1962. eBook. .
Book 1 of Plato's Republic raises the question what is justice? Four views of justice are examined. The first is that justice is speaking the truth and paying one's debt. The second is that justice is helping one's friends and harming one's enemies. The third view of justice is that it is to the advantage of the stronger. The last view is that injustice is more profitable than justice.
The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those views about justice are to be overcome.
Thrasymachus’s main argument is that, “Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger” (338c). In other words, Thrasymachus believes justice is advantageous to the stronger because those who behave justly are disadvantaged, and the strong who behave unjustly are advantaged. In his sense injustice is more profitable than justice because it allows people to enjoy benefits they would not obtain if they were to act just.
In The Republic, a truly just state contains four cardinal virtues, which can also be found in a just individual. Justice is the fourth cardinal virtue, but can only be reached once three other virtues are achieved. The first cardinal virtue necessary for justice is wisdom. In an individual, wisdom stems from the prevalence of reason in one’s rational mind, which in turn leads to knowledge and a good sense of judgment. When extended to the just state, the members of Socrates’ utopian society who embody wisdom are the ruling class of philosopher kings (Plato, Republic, 428e). In fact, wisdom is so important to Socrates that he believes in a extremely rigid and structured education for these members of society, so as to develop the rational part of their brain (Plato, Republic, 428e). Courage is another virtue necessary for justice, and occurs when an individual’s wisdom is “backed up” by his or her spirit, unflinching in the face of “fears and desires”(Plato, Republic, 429d). Without courage, wisdom and reason will not be the dominant forces is one’s mind. This reasoning certainly applies to the importance of auxiliaries in a perfect society, where the values and beliefs integral to its well being are constantly imparted on public servants through education and training (Plato, Republic,
Thrasymachus believes that the definition that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger. Thrasymachus definition quote
For Plato’s thesis – justice pays – to be validated, he has to prove two things, the first being that justice is inherently good. In