Justice, according to Thrasymachus, gives leverage to the more influential people and harms the people that submit to these people. Injustice is the opposite. Injustice rules the “proles”, the “simpleminded” because they are simply just people without any significant value. Thrasymachus also adds that these “just people” would bend over backwards in order to benefit the more influential people in order to make them happy, without any regard for the benefactor’s own happiness. A modern day example of this would be a desperate high school boy doing anything a girl tells them to do just so they could go on a date with her. Thrasymachus believes that being unjust is the happiest possible life because you are benefiting yourself and receiving a bigger benefit than someone who is just. One example he uses is that someone who is just would have to pay more in taxes than someone who is unjust, thus the unjust person would get to pocket more money. The same goes with “the city giving out refunds”, unjust people get to pocket the money whereas a just person wouldn’t get a dime. Thrasymachus is a sophist so he isn’t worried about the reality of his claims and getting his point across but more so winning the argument. …show more content…
Criminals are considered unjust because they committed a crime, but if someone of higher power seizes one’s possessions by force or arrests them or anything similar to what the criminals do they aren’t shamed by the people but are praised instead. In closing, being on the receiving end of injustice causes people to criticize “those who revile justice”. And finally, injustice is more beneficial to the people because it is more profitable to one’s
The question of “What is Justice?” plagued the ancient philosophers and continues to plague the professional and amateur academic philosophers of today. The question is so hard, because it is quite difficult to know where to begin. Socrates1 spoke of justice in relation to the gods, Plato in relation to an individual’s duty in society, and Achilles, in a somewhat indirect way, in relation to honor and loyalty. All three of these men had very convincing arguments about the true nature of justice, but it is impossible to say now, or most likely ever, whether any of them actually got it right. The current goal is to synthesize their ideas with those of Aristophanes, Euripides2, and even Richard Kraut, representing the modern academic philosopher, in an effort to further develop and test the concept of justice.
Kephalos defines justice as returning what one has received (Ten Essays, Leo Strauss, page 169). On the other hand, Kaphalos’ son, Polemarchus, states that justice is found in harming one’s enemies and helping ones’ friends (Republic, 332D). The final opinion in the discussion is given by Thrasymachus as he says: “justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger” (Republic, 338C). However, the lack of knowledge to apply their definitions in reality creates a problem for Socrates. For example, Polemarchos’ view on justice requires a person to be able to distinguish between a friend and an enemy (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Socrates then refutes their definitions of justice and states that it is an advantage to be just and a disadvantage to be unjust. According to Socrates’ philosophy, “a just man will harm no man” and the application of justice becomes an art conjoined with philosophy, the medicine of the soul (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Therefore, the use of philosophy in ruling a city is necessary and the end goal of justice cannot be achieved unless the philosophers
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 Republic, Glaucon is very keen on finding the true importance of what justice truly is. To do this he chooses to commend inequality in the virtuous way so that Socrates will disprove it and give him the true meaning of justice in its most sheer form. Glaucon addresses the situation by talking about the following three points: what people consider justice to be and what its roots are, all who exercise it, do so reluctantly, not because it is good, but essential, and that the life of the unjust man is preferable to that of the just man. Glaucon delivers exceptional proof for his dispute and by observing it from the viewpoint of a natural man, one who doesn’t have a spirit or conscience to disprove injustice, his dispute holds fact. However, I find it hard to believe that injustice is better than justice. His first point in commending injustice essentially declares that justice is shaped out of injustice.
Justice is perhaps the most formidable instrument that could be used in the pursuit of peace. It allows for people to rise above the state of mere nature and war with one another. However the fool believes that justice is a mere tool to be used to acquire power and rule at his own discretion. Can it be possible for anyone to be that virtuous? Or does power acquired in that manner actually come from somewhere else? Through justice it’s possible to produce a sovereign that is in harmony with the very people that constitute its power. The argument against the fool and for justice will proceed from this foundation.
Have you ever ask yourself how much being unjust impacts your everyday life and decisions, and how your life would change when you are just? Plato wrote in this book’s expect about how Glaucon perceives the basic idea of justice and how we humans perceive justice as. People created own laws and are deciding whether or no to follow them. One of Glaucon’s argument is that we follow justice to get things or because of its consequences. He also argues that we should preserve justice as a way to gain things not to value it for its own sake. The first of Glaucon’s two claims is the descriptive claim which talks about and explains that humans instrumentally value justice instead of intrinsically valuing it.
Injustice is something that has been around for a long time and at the rate, things are going it is not going away anytime soon. Espada states, "This is the year that police revolvers, stove-hot, blister the fingers of raging cops, and night sticks splinter in their palms;" referring to police receiving punishments for their actions as soon as they act in unjust ways (Espada 3). In many situations of injustice, the victim wishes they could release an equal or more intense wrath on their oppressor, Espada shows that happening in an immediate punishment. Much like the underpaid tomato farmers who work hard to get paid next to nothing will one day reap the
Unjust to me means anything that goes against the golden rule, which is to “treat others as you want to be treated". I have a fondness for the simplicity of the golden rule and I think it puts everything in perspective in terms of morality for everyone of all ages. From my point of view the concept of the golden rule epitomizes the moral code. The golden rule is best understood by saying “Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation.” When you apply the rule you’d have to imagine yourself on the receiving end of the action. If you act a way towards someone and are unwilling to be treated that way under the same circumstance than you violate this rule, thus making it an unjust action. That includes having that other person’s likes and dislikes in mind. Of course I do believe there are levels to it, a murder isn’t on par with stealing your brother’s socks.
Justice. What is justice? In this world where many people look out only for themselves, justice can be considered the happiness of oneself. But because selfish men do not always decide our standards in society, to find a definition, society should look at the opinions of many. Just as in the modern society to which we live, where everyone feels justice has a different meaning, the society of Plato also struggled with the same problem. In this paper, I will look into the Republic, one of the books of Plato that resides heavily on defining an answer to the meaning of Justice, and try to find an absolute definition. I will also give my opinion on what I personally think justice is.
In Allan Bloom’s translation of The Republic of Plato, Glaucon claims that those who practice justice do it not because they want to, but because they feel as if they are obligated to appear just.
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 has just stated, "Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger", and is now, at the request of Socrates, clarifying his statement.
Last but not least, injustice does not provide the most good for the most number of people. Just acts spawn other just acts just like unjust acts spawn other unjust acts. If everyone behaved unjustly, mankind would return to a state of nature (everyone is for themselves) which would be very unprofitable for the unjust individual due to a decreased likelihood of survival. An action is clearly unprofitable for the unjust individual if it would eventually create a hostile environment for him. Hence, one should set an example for others by living a just life which would create a better environment for him as well as for others.
The Republic is a Socratic book written by Plato in 380 BC about the definition of justice and the directive and atmosphere of the just city and the just man. It is Plato’s best-known work and has proven to be one of the most knowledgeable and historic works of philosophy. In it, Socrates discusses the meaning of justice and examines whether or not the just man is happier than the unjust man. Socrates shows that living a virtuous life can yield greater pleasures than living an unvirtuous life. I find it very necessary to discuss the characteristics of a just person because in this day and age one is not applauded for remaining just in the face of temptations and threat, rather than today there is a huge emphasis on being rich and having lots of power. No one ever questions how someone became a success. I believe that values are inimitable and worth following despite what others think. In today’s society there is not enough focus on the importance of being just
Is the life of a unjust person better then a just person? To figure this out, we first will have to examine the life of an unjust and just person. There are several claims that the life of an unjust person is better then just. Thrasymachos claims that justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger. Gluacon believes that being unjust but still attain the reputation of a just could achieve you a good life. I will be arguing that injustice in today’s society is at peak and unjust people are taking advantage of the just.