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.
Initially Thrasymachus states that Justice is ‘nothing else but the interest of the stronger’. Cross and Woozley identify four possible interpretations; the Naturalistic definition, Nihilistic view, Incidental comment, and the more useful Essential analysis. The ‘Essential Analysis’: “An action is just if and only if it serves the interest of the stronger,” with Thrasymachus stating the disadvantages of Justice and advantages of Injustice. This leads to problems with the stronger man, is it merely the promotion of self-interests? If Justice favours the interests of the stronger, is this simply from the perception of the weak with morality not concerning the stronger? Cross re-formulates Thrasymachus’s view as ‘Justice is the promotion of the ‘strongers’ interest’, therefore both weak and strong can act justly in furthering the strongers interests. However, complication occurs when we understand that Justice is another’s good: “You are not aware tha...
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
Thrasymachus has just stated, "Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger", and is now, at the request of Socrates, clarifying his statement.
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.
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...
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
The debate between Thrasymachus and Socrates begins when Thrasymachus gives his definition of justice in a very self-interested form. Thrasymachus believes that justice is only present to benefit the ruler, or the one in charge – and for that matter any one in charge can change the meaning of justice to accommodate their needs (343c). Thrasymachus provides a very complex example supporting his claim. He states that the man that is willing to cheat and be unjust to achieve success will be by far the best, and be better than the just man.
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.
Thrasymachus defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. “I say justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (338c). Thrasymachus explains how rulers are the most powerful people in the city, who make the laws, which are just therefore making the rulers the stronger. He explains that rulers make laws that will benefit themselves; whether this means they make laws that are just depends on the type of ruler. “democracy makes democratic ones, tyranny tyrannical ones…” (338 10e), he is saying that if one is democratic their laws will be fair and just but if not they will make unfair rules and therefore be unjust. Thrasymachus explains that the reason he thinks that justice is the advantage for the stronger is because the people who rule cities have more power than everyone else and therefore determine what the rules are and what is just.
Hourani, George. Thrasymachus' Definition of Justice in Plato's Republic. 2. 7. Focus Publishing, 1962. eBook. .
Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice. Thus the role of Book I is to turn the minds from the customary evaluation of justice towards this new vision. Through the discourse between Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Socaretes’ thoughts and actions towards justice are exemplified. Though their views are different and even opposed, the way all three discourse about justice and power reveal that they assume the relation between the two to be separate. They find it impossible to understand the idea that being just is an exercise of power and that true human power must include the ability to act justly. And that is exactly what Socrates seeks to refute.
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,
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil. This is where Plato’s argument that justice is in one’s self-interest is disturbed. This paper will discuss the idea that justice is not in one’s self-interest, and thus does not pay.