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 …show more content…
They are set so that the citizens follow the rules and, in a sense, serve those in power. Therefore, might makes right. This system should ultimately benefit those in power. That was the way things were ran in Greece at the time. He defines justice as the citizens obeying the law. There have been times in the past, here in the United States, where those in power (the might) has made rules that were not beneficial for them. One instance would be prohibition in the 1920’s to early 1930’s. When the government made it illegal to make, buy, or sell alcohol. The government thought this would eliminate the crimes and immorality associated with the people drinking alcohol. As a result from the prohibition, only about fifty percent of the consumption of alcohol was cut. Ultimately prohibition in the United States led to more crime. There was more crime being committed because of the illegal distilling, selling, and transporting of alcohol. Prohibition led to organized crime in the United States, and marks the beginning of mafias. The mafias were powerhouses for organized crime. In this case the laws made by those in power to try and eliminate the consumption of alcohol by its citizens resulted in bigger problems, which did not benefit the ones in power. Therefore might makes right is not always in the interest of those in power. Thrasymachus also said the lower citizens only obeyed the laws because they …show more content…
Their ideas of what is fair and what is just seem to be two opposite views. Thrasymachus’ view makes sense here in civilization, and might makes right temporarily here in civilization. Where those in power can stay in power by setting laws. Socrates seems to be talking more about morality. Anyone with power can make what is right, but it does not mean it is necessarily make it morally right. Socrates means, when people in power abuse their power, by unjustly making rules to oppress those beneath them, they are being unjust to their soul. Any power can be misused, and it can lead to some morally wrong
In Book 1 of the ‘Republic’, Socrates, in answer to the question ‘What is Justice?’ is presented with a real and dangerous alternative to what he thinks to be the truth about Justice. Julia Annas believes Thrasymachus thinks Justice and Injustice do have a real existence that is independent of human institutions; and that Thrasymachus makes a decided commitment to Injustice. She calls this view ‘Immoralism’: “the immoralist holds that there is an important question about justice, to be answered by showing that injustice is better.” This essay identifies this ‘Immoral’ view before understanding if and how Plato can respond to it. How does Plato attempt to refute Thrasymachus’s argument? Is he successful?
Law is to country just like soil is to plants. If the soil is right and appropriate then the the plant will flourish. If laws are just and its conditions are right, then the state will benefit from it. Without an appropriate law, the state will be in complete chaos. In the same case, two different lawgivers from different nations were given the same mission: to help make their states better than it was. Solon, an Athenian archon who was elected to make Athens and its city states thrive and remove this nation from its disastrous state. On the other hand, there’s Lycurgus, a Spartan man, whose mission was to help make Sparta also a thriving nation based on his first hand experiences he had during his travels (mostly from Egypt and Crete). At the end of the day, these two lawgivers had a different notion of justice and they each dealt with social inequalities in their city in their own way.
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.
Thucydides was right to claim that all wars can be explained by Fear, Honor, and Interest. All Wars are related to the three characteristics as stated by Dr. Nation (Dr. Nation video). The Athenians thought process was that the weak would be ruled by the strong and that was the nature of conflict (Strassler p. 43). Looking at the Peloponnesian war itself will illustrate how fear, honor and interest were involved with how this war developed. The initial unnamed Athenian that made that statement was probably using it to deter war with Sparta when it mostly incited the war (Dr. Nation Video). The Athenians wanted to maintain and sustain their city state but also expand it. They were expanding through their alliances and this is what invoked the
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
Truth be told there is no real justice in Socrates? ?just city?. Servitude of those within his city is crucial to its function. His citizens are, in every aspect, slaves to the functionality of a city that is not truly their own. True justice can not be achieved through slavery and servitude, that which appears to be justice (and all for the sake of appearances) is all that is achieved. Within Socrates? city there is no room for identity, individuality, equality, or freedom, which are the foundations justice was built upon. These foundations are upheld within a proper democracy. In fact, the closest one can experience justice, on a political level, is through democracy.
Let us firstly analyze and delineate the significant instances in the interchange between the unjust speech and the unjust speech. Both the unjust and just speech begin this interchange with a heavy slandering of one another. Perhaps, one of the most notable moments of this slander is when the just speech, after claiming that it believes in and stands for justice and is hence “speaking the just things”, is asked by the unjust speech that “denies that justice even exists” to “answer the following question, if justice truly exists, then why didn’t Zeus perish when he bound his father?” (p. 152, 901-905). The just speech replies to this question by exclaiming that “...this is the evil that’s spreading around” and that he needs “a basin” if he is to continue hearing it (p. 152, 906-907). Firstly the just speech, as a mouthpiece for the existing Athenian legal-political convention, has claimed that this legal-political convention is where justice in its entirety is to be found. Secondly and simultaneously, however, the just speech finds itself unable to articulate what it means by justice and how the teachings of the Homeric Gods, that have informed the construction of Athenian political convention, are positive and/or negative examples of an
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.
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.
In the course reader from page 110 to 111, Thrasymachus is arguing that complete injustice is more profitable than complete justice since the unjust person will always get more.Thrasymachus also argues that the unjust people are clever and good and that those who just are foolish and naïve. Thrasymachus consider the unjust people clever because they always try to outdo either the just or unjust. And they usually gain more bargain in deal-making. He says that the just will only try to outdo the unjust and will not take advantage of the just. Socrates then argues that if what Thrasymachus is saying is true, then unjust people are also wise and good like the wise and good people, while the just person is not wise and good (Angier, Bloom, 2015).
...s are a paradigm case of those in control. The essence of ruling is, therefore, to be unjust and that is why a tyrant is a perfect ruler. He always knows what is to his advantage and how to acquire it. Thrasymachus’ view of justice is appealing but therein lies a moral danger and this is refuted by Socrates.
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.
How do we define reason as just? When asked this question, it really makes you begin to wonder how to depict what one might think is just. In the story of Medea, reason is what drives many of the characters actions. For example, the reason that Jason leaves Medea for Creon's daughter is for his own benefit. Is that just? Medea then kills Creon and his daughter for revenge against Jason. Is that just?.
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.