Thrasymachus' Perspective on Human Nature
Thrasymachus' perspective of human nature is that we all seek to maximize power, profit and possessions. He gives the argument that morality is not an objective truth but rather a creation of the stronger (ruling) party to serve its own advantage. Therefore definitions of "just" and "unjust", "right" and "wrong", "moral" and "immoral" are all dependent upon the decree of the ruling party. Thrasymachus argues that acting "morally", in accordance with the ruling party, benefits the ruling party, while acting "immorally", injures the ruling party and benefits oneself.
Thrasymachus perceives human nature as our ruthless drive toward superiority. He believes that unless we are foolish "moral simpletons," we will act according to what is best for us, namely living immorally on a quest to becoming ruler of the world. He believes that our human nature has no qualms about committing immoral actions. In describing human nature Thrasymachus says, "immorality has a bad name because people are afraid of being at the receiving end of it, not of doing it." (Republic 344c) When we finally reach the goal, the ideal of human nature, we will be able to practice "immorality in its most perfect form," stealing "what doesn't belong to [us] - consecrated and unconsecrated objects, private possessions, and public property - and [we do] so not on a small scale, but comprehensively." (Republic 344a-b) Thrasymachus makes the assumption that we are all driven to acquiring as much power, profit and possessions as possible. His argument for living immorally rests on the assumption that our human nature's burning desire is for more of the three p's (power, profit and possessions), and that there is more ...
... middle of paper ...
...ity is created by those in power, and thus, there is no absolute true morality, he concludes that the best way to satisfy his human desire is to acquire as much power as possible, and take from others as much as he can. Because his view of morality is not fixed but created by those in power, he defines words like "moral", "just", and "right" based on one's compliance with the rules of the ruling party. He claims that acting "morally" serves the ruling party because the ruling party designed the legal structure for its own benefit. Socrates raises some criticisms, especially the criticism showing that people behaving immorally would not be able to act in concert with others and would fall out with others, which are compelling and discredit Thrasymachus' position. From this it is conclusive that Thrasymachus has not entirely captured the essence of human nature.
There have been numerous debates within the last decade over what needs to be done about welfare and what is the best welfare reform plan. In the mid-1990s the TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Act was proposed under the Clinton administration. This plan was not received well since it had put a five year lifetime limit on receiving welfare and did not supply the necessary accommodations to help people in poverty follow this guideline. Under the impression that people could easily have found a job and worked their way out of poverty in five years, the plan was passed in 1996 and people in poverty were immediately forced to start looking for jobs. When the TANF Act was up for renewal earlier this year, the Bush administration carefully looked at what the TANF Act had done for the poverty stricken. Bush realized that, in his opinion, the plan had been successful and should stay in effect with some minor tweaking. Bush proposed a similar plan which kept the five year welfare restriction in place but did raise the budgeted amount of money to be placed towards childcare and food stamps. Both the TANF Act and Bush's revised bill have caused a huge controversy between liberal and conservative activists. The liberals feel that it is cruel to put people in a situation where they can no longer receive help from the government since so many people can not simply go out and get a job and work their way out of poverty. They feel if finding a job was that easy, most people would have already worked their way out of poverty. The conservatives feel that the plans, such as the TANF Act, are a surefire way to lower poverty levels and unemployment rates as well as decrease the amount o...
Margulies, Joseph. 2013. What Changed When Everything Changed: 9/11 and the Making of National Identity. Yale University Press.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were horrific and traumatic events that affected not only the United States but had global ramifications as well. The events of that day produced immediate and long term effects on numerous aspects of society. The human tragedy in the loss of human life was immeasurable. The societal effects of 9/11 continue to be present even today as the war against terror continues. It is difficult to measure the societal impacts, but the economic cost of the attacks, have been and continue to be measured.
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.
It is his companions, Glaucon and Adeimantus, who revitalized Thrasymachus’ claim of justice. Thrasymachus believes that justice is what the people who are in charge say it is and from that point on it is Socrates’ goal to prove him wrong. Socrates believes that justice is desired for itself and works as a benefit. All four characters would agree that justice has a benefit. To accurately prove his point of justice, Socrates has to reference his own version of nature and nurture. He, Socrates, believes that justice is innately born in everyone. No one person is incapable of being just. Justice is tantamount to a skill or talent. Like any skill or talent, justice must be nurtured so that it is at its peak and mastered form. The city that Socrates has built is perfect in his eyes because every denizen has been gifted with a talent, then properly educated on how best to use their talent, and lastly able to apply their just morals in everyday
... was not the best person on Earth, nor was he the worst person as portrayed in the news. The same type of repetition and emphasizing could have been done to portray Hugo Chavez as the greatest leader in the world. If Hugo Chavez actions and objectives were more publicize, then his representation in the media would not have been a evil dictator who is against the U.S, rather it would be man who wanted to help the poor and tried to find peace within nations. Stone states that “the changes that occurred in Venezuela reflect the true spirit of the country’s people. Venezuela was ranked 7.6 on a scale of 1 to 10, in the level of democracy. They placed their democracy higher than any other Latin American.” Stone, Scott, Boykoff, Sheehan, and Dwyer represent Hugo Chavez as a victim of media corruption, but a fighter for still succeeding while being targeted.
Timocracy and oligarchy are valued more than democracy by Socrates. Individuals within a timocracy are ruled by the spirited part of the soul and as a result are constantly in search of honor. The spirited part of the soul aides the rational and therefore is valued as the second best part of the soul. The principle of specialization is still apparent among the individuals within the timocratic city but it is not governed as well as an aristocracy.
Being raised in a single-parent lower class home, I realize first-hand the need for welfare and government assistance programs. I also realize that the system is very complex and can become a crutch to people who become dependent and complacent. As a liberal American I do believe that the government should provide services to the less fortunate and resources to find work. However, as able-bodied citizens we should not become complacent with collecting benefits and it is the government’s job to identify people who take advantage of the system and strip benefits from people who are not making efforts to support themselves independently. I will identify errors that exist within the welfare system and several policy recommendations to implement a change that will counteract the negative conditions that currently exist.
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on America divided two nations, yet knit one closer like the attacks on Pearl Harbor. There were many events that lead up to 9/11 that were only the beginning. The attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001 was the finale. George Bush wrote in his diary, “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century happened today…” (George Bush). This attack was a surprise, just like Pearl Harbor, but the U.S. reacted swiftly and effectively. The appalling events Now, more than a decade later, the 9/11 attacks still affect our life today.
...red. The basis of IVF, surrogate motherhood and sundry practices is allergic to morality. Further developments would only inspire other immoralities. We have to make them a tough procedure to follow. We need to construct an order before crises impose one as a necessity. By then many waters of life may have passed irrevocably under the bridge.
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...
Socrates asks how can an organization, that by its very nature must act immorally (eg. Allow injustice) have moral authority? Since a political community must require its citizens to accept, unquestioningly, (at least at times) its basic assumptions and must demand obedience to its laws for the community to continue to survive and prosper, it must stifle individual humans in their pursuit of knowledge.
Thrasymachus starts off by stating his conclusion: justice is the advantage of the stronger. He then gives Socrates two premises that he uses to arrive at his conclusion first that rulers of cities are stronger than their subjects and second that rulers declare what is just and unjust by making laws for their subjects to follow. Since justice is declared by the stronger then it must surely be a tool for the stronger.
Justice and morality can be viewed hand in hand as justice is based off a foundation of moral beliefs involving ethics, fairness and the law. The nature of justice and morality and how they are related has been debated heavily throughout philosophical history. When analyzing Nietzsche’s work On the Genealogy of Morals, and Thrasymachus in Plato’s, Republic it is evident that they have similarities and differences when one compares their individual accounts on the nature and genesis of justice and morality. Such similarities are their views on the nature of society and humans are naturally unequal. In addition, both philosophers agree with the statement that there can be no common good amongst society and that all moral values are socially created. On the other hand, although Nietzsche and Thrasymachus have these resemblances between their accounts, they each have unique personal differences which set them apart from each other.
Wisdom, courage, moderation and justice are four essential virtues the ideal state must be built upon, as explained by Socrates in Plato’s Republic. Throughout the eight books of Socratic dialogue the ideal state and ideas of justice are debated, on both individual and state levels. The guidelines for a perfect state and how it will come about are thoroughly described. Socrates covers every aspect of political life and how it should work stating that “until power and philosophy entirely coincide… cities will have no rest form evils” . In Plato’s Republic Socrates emphasizes the superiority of the philosopher and their abilities to rule as kings above others. He believes that they are best suited to rule as a result of their pure souls and lust for knowledge, the desire for truth over opinions and things that are tangible. The philosopher is best able to fulfill the four essential virtues of the state and thus must be the king. He evokes the idea of a cave, a parallel to the effects of education on the soul and a metaphor for human perceptions, to describe how humans will act and show distinctions between groups of people. This conception of the ideal state has been heavily criticized by his successors, but when applied according to how Plato perceived the state and human capacity, in theory the idea of the philosopher-king is extremely convincing. According to Socrates the soul is made up of three parts, and each person is governed primarily by a different one. Which aspect of the soul occupies a person affects their access to the four virtues deemed ultimate. The appetitive part of the soul is at the bottom of the divided line; it controls the unnecessary desires and is undesirable to be governed by. The spirited element of the s...