Human Nature and Moral Theory in Plato’s Republic

Human Nature and Moral Theory in Plato’s Republic

In Chapter 2 of Republic, Glaucon uses the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd to portray a pessimistic view of human nature. Plato, the author of Republic, uses his brother Glaucon to tell the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd. We are led to believe that Plato takes the myth and its implications on human nature very seriously by use of a personal character. The argument, originally given by Thrasymachus, contends that at the root of our human nature we all yearn for the most profit possible. It also contends that any man will act immorally if given free reign. The theory proves unplausible due to circularity in the argument and implications that prove untrue.

Thrasymachus approaches Socrates, the main character of Republic and most of Plato's work, during a conversation on the topic of morality. The aggressive Thrasymachus interjects his own opinion; morality is "the advantage of the stronger." (Republic 338c) Upon clarification, Thrasymachus lays out his view of socially created moral relativism, as opposed to Socrates' moral objectivism. Thrasymachus illustrates his view by citing how different types of government create laws serving purposes specific to each government, "a democracy passing democratic laws, a dictatorship making dictatorial laws… In doing so each government makes it clear that what is right and moral for its subjects is what is to its own advantage." (Republic 338e) Thrasymachus also argues that it is advantageous to live an immoral life rather than a moral one. He says, "morality and right are actually good for someone else… and bad for the underling at the receiving end of the orders… the opposite is true for immorality: the wrongdoer lords it over those ...

... middle of paper ...

...l men desire power and superiority. However this argument raises inconsistencies because Thrasymachus' Argument implies that every person in power attained that position motivated by the desire to commit large-scale immoral actions. The Collapse Argument shows that the implications of Thrasymachus' Argument lead to an inevitable social collapse. Since not all societies have collapsed, some other motivation must have impelled individuals to seek positions of power. In addition, Thrasymachus could not adequately support the second premise of his argument without a defense that leads both Premise 2 and conclusion C to circularity. Thus the argument presented by Thrasymachus and Glaucon is implausible, and the moral relativism that emerges from their line of reasoning is not proven.

Work Cited

Bloom, Allan. The Republic of Plato, New York: Basic Books, 1968.