According To Thracymachus Justice Is In The Interest Of

In his defense, Socrates claims over and again that he is innocent and is not at all wise, “…for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great.” Throughout the rest of his oration he seems to act the opposite as if he is better than every man, and later he even claims that, “At any rate, the world has decided that Socrates is in some way superior to other

In evaluating Socrates ' success in arguing against Thrasymachus ' account, it is imperative to begin by appreciating Socrates ' intentions and the place of Thrasymachus ' account within that goal. As the literary director of Republic, Plato is well-positioned to articulate any arguments contained in Republic to his advantage, and I suggest that he very much does. Further, although Socrates is but Plato 's literary vehicle in Republic, for the sake of clarity I shall attribute and refer to arguments and views expressed throughout as belonging to Socrates.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote “One man’s justice is another’s injustice.” This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient to Socrates also. Eventually, the two agree “that it is never just to harm anyone” (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a

The Republic presents two very different views of justice as argued by two skilled thinkers. The beginning of the discussion starts off with Thrasymachus explaining what exactly he believes justice is; “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.” (338c) Although Thrasymachus’ definition is clear, Socrates attempts to spite him by using a wild comparison, by saying “If Polydamamas, the pancratiast, is stronger than we are and beef is advantageous for his body, then this food is also advantageous and just for us who are weaker than he is.” (338c) This statement from Socrates disgusts Thrasymachus because Thrasymachus was simply referring to “stronger” in the sense of being a ruler, not strong in the sense of being physically larger. To counter Socrates, Thrasymachus explains how different societies are ruled throughout the world whether it be tyrannically, democratically, or otherwise, and how the rulers, those who are strongest, are the ones who make the laws and they do so to their advantage. Thrasymachus establishes this by saying how, “A democracy sets down democratic laws; a tyranny, tyrannic laws; and the others do the same.” (338e) It is clear from this line of reasoning that Thrasymachus has a solid position that justice is, rightly or wrongly, the enforcement of the rule of law as dictated by the “strong leaders” that make the law.

Many of Socrates’ statements suggest that the moral education offered to each class is substantially different. For example, Socrates asks Glaucon, ‘In the city we’re establishing, who do you think will prove to be better men, the guardians, who receive the education we’ve described, or the cobblers, who are educated in cobblery?’ (456d). Socrates suggests that his city will be harmonized through persuasion (431e-432a) and he claims that the city will run smoothly with relatively few laws (427a). No one will ever find the need to think, speak, or behave in an unacceptable manner because they will not have the mental capability of even thinking to do such a

To start with, Thrasymachus argues that it is profitable to act unjustly and harmful to act justly. When Thrasymachus first defines justice as nothing other than the advantage of the stronger, he refers to the ruler, which is the stronger, and the ruled (Plato, 338c). In this context, he believes that the ruling party in any type of regime – tyranny, democracy, or aristocracy – makes laws to its own advantage and defines the acts to its disadvantage as unjust (338d – 339a). For the subjects it is just to obey the laws and serve the ruler’s interest, so if there is a conflict between the interests of the ruler and the subjects, the ruler seeks what benefits itself through laws

In Apology, Plato 's representation of Socrates states "as I thought and believed, to live the life of a philosopher, to examine myself and others". This statement is a response to the scornful remarks of the accusers asking him if he is not ashamed of where his "human wisdom" has gotten him. Socrates states that a "man who is any good" should only consider "whether he is acting like a good or a bad man". It is evident that Socrates views good character as an important trait of a wise person. He goes on to say that all men should take care

First, throughout Book I, Plato seems to portray Thrasymachus as a vigorous character who wants to overcome and achieve rhetorical victory over Socrates. As Plato illustrates, “Even in the middle of our conversation Thrasymachus had repeatedly tried to take control of the discussion” (Plato, 336b) and as soon as Socrates ends his discussion in finding the true definition of justice with Polemarchus, “he gathered himself and sprang at us, like a wild beast at its prey” and enters into the discussion (Rep. 336b). However, unlike his zeal to achieve victory over Socrates, Thrasymachus is continuously rebutted by Socrates which views Thrasymachus’ arguments inconsistent and self-contradictory for his definition of justice. Initiating his discussion with Socrates, Thrasymachus brings up his account of justice. Thrasymachus insists, “I say that justice is simply what is good for the stronger” (Rep. 338c). Also, later on in his discussion with Socrates, he provides another claim for his view of justice, that “justice and the

Thrasymachus way of defining justice differs from Polermarchus because you do not have to be the most virtuous person to be just in the context of

Before analysing the strengths and weaknesses of Thrasymachus’s argument we must look at a key fault in his definition, which is he doesn’t give one. Instead of defining justice he ends up describing it. Thrasymachus says that justice is in “the advantage of the established ruling body” but does not define what justice is. The conversation

Socrates responds to Thrasymachus’ argument that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger by saying that justice is actually what is advantageous for the weaker. He gives an example of a horse trainer. The horse trainer is obviously the superior of the two and in charge of the horse but it does what is advantageous to the horse not himself. The same goes for a doctor who does what is good for his patients and a captain does what is advantageous for his sailors.

Thrasymachus then says that some people who appear to be good actually aren’t they only appear to be good because they are actually too afraid to break the rules or they are just stupid. He says that smart people break the rules and that they are courageous for doing so. It is clear at this point when Thrasymachus says that injustice is actually a good thing and if you have to chance to commit an injustice and get away with it you should if it will give you more power because the more power you have the better your life is. Socrates stops him and tells him that he is incorrect. Socrates says that at some level there has to be justice he uses an example of thieves and how on some level they incorporate justice by trusting other thieves. If thieves could not trust other thieves then there could be chaos among them and chaos bring weakness. This disproves what Thrasymachus says about committing injustice whenever you can because it will give you power. Socrates disproves Thrasymachus’ third statement by speaking

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.

In his argument, Socrates is trying to discover the qualities of a just man. He draws an analogy with medicine to show that a doctor, who is wise and good, will never have a desire to outperform other doctors, but only non-doctors. In case with music, the story will not differ, for wise and good musicians will only demand to reach the state of harmony in music. Oppositely, non-musicians and non-doctors will only want to outperform everyone. Socrates, then concludes that in every field of knowledge, a knowledgeable person would not want to do better than any other knowledgeable man, while an ignorant and bad person will only have a desire to outdo others. From there, Socrates makes an inference that since a person reflects the qualities of the man he is like, an unjust person appears to be ignorant

Though defeated on this point, he's not yet satisfied with Socrates' argument, and sticks by one of his previously stated views which held that injustice is more profitable than justice. However, he shrinks back and seems no longer able to speak for himself after Socrates refuted his argument on justice. Despite his withdrawal from the argument throughout the rest of the Republic, his early ideas help lead Socrates farther on his search for justice through the construction of a hypothetical just city. In describing the education of the guardians of this city, Socrates discusses the need for a balance between gymnastics and poetry. He relates how too much gymnastics lead the spirited part of someone to be overtightened and hard. "He'll be museless and hate discussion" explains Socrates. This hardness and hate for discussion reminds us of the actions of Thrasymachus at the beginning of the argument defining justice. Thrasymachus becomes an example of a "badly tuned soul" that Socrates goes on to describe.