Compare And Contrast Thrasymachus And Socrates

Glaucon sees the issue from the perspective of personal gain or loss, while Plato sees it from outside that realm in the sphere of absolute truths. Clearly, an absolute truth is more viable and defensible than a personal interest. Justice is a higher order than personal advantage and as is associated with happiness whether one receives a reward for justice or not. The argument Glaucon raises against the absolutism of justice is exemplified in his story of the man who discovers a gold ring that allows him to become invisible. Glaucon proposes these two representative men as extreme examples of the two sides of the argument and suggests that their positions be examined after their death to see which was happier, based on the premise that the unjust man meted out injustice at will without ever suffering it himself, while the just man acted only justly but was treated unjustly himself. Glaucon takes this example to the extreme, with the just man being: “whipped...racked...bound; he'll have both his eyes burned out; and at the end, when he has undergone every sort of evil, he'll be crucified and know that one shouldn't wish to be, but to seem to be, just” (39). Glaucon sets these two men at extremes to prove his point-that happiness does not come from being

Glaucon states that all goods can be divided into three classes: things that we desire for their consequences; goods that we desire for their own sake and things we desire both for their own sake and for their beneficial consequences. Socrates believes that justice is in the latter group. Glaucon asks Socrates to prove justice is in the last group and begins defending unjust actions in the strongest way possible (Plato, 2008).

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

The debate moves on as Thrasymachus tries to define justice. Thrasymachus makes two critical points in his argument. He first says that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Thus the rulers govern on their own behalf. However Socrates shows that in fact the rulers are at the mercy of their subjects and make decisions that can be good or bad for the people and it is the right of the people to follow these actions or not. He states that "no knowledge considers or prescribes for the advantage of the stronger, but for that of the weaker, which it rules." [342d]

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

Glaucon begins Republic II by describing different types of goods and by placing them into categories beginning with those that are valued for their own sake (Plato 399). In this category what is good is not sought after for its ability to achieve something, but only for its inherent worth as an end in itself. For Glaucon, joy is an intrinsically valuable good that we appreciate merely because it is joyful to have joy. Glaucon describes the next category of goods as those that not only have intrinsic value, but also those that provide an additional service such as health (Plato 399). Lastly, Glaucon describes a category of goods that are valued only for their instrumental ability, and are worthless upon losing said ability. To elaborate on this last category of goods, a hammer is valued not because it is a hammer, but because it can hammer and once it can no longer hammer it is no longer valued.

The position Thrasymachus takes on the definition of justice, as well as its importance in society, is one far differing from the opinions of the other interlocutors in the first book of Plato’s Republic. Embracing his role as a Sophist in Athenian society, Thrasymachus sets out to aggressively dispute Socrates’ opinion that justice is a beneficial and valuable aspect of life and the ideal society. Throughout the course of the dialogue, Thrasymachus formulates three major assertions regarding justice. These claims include his opinion that “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,” “it is just to obey the rulers,” and “justice is really the good of another […] and harmful to the one who obeys and serves.” Socrates

Still unresolved, the debate moves into a second stage, where tyranny, or perfect injustice, and benevolent rule, or perfect justice, are evaluated against one another. Again, through a series of examples, Socrates prevails--the unjust man's pride and ambition are shown to be weaknesses,

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

Thrasymachus states that those who abide by/follow the norms and laws of society are put at a distinct disadvantage. “Justice is to the advantage of the stronger,” (Pg. 1). The sophist Anton stated that we ought to be unjust when being unjust is to our advantage. Those who behave unjustly gain money, power and respect in society. This is so because the laws have no true value, the rulers create the laws to enforce their own beliefs onto their people. “Each form of government creates unique laws that are to their own advantage. Democracy makes democratic laws; tyranny makes tyrannical law, and so on.” (Pg. 15) Therefore, justice is the advantage of the established rule. The laws of society do not represent what is just and unjust, because of that, we don’t have a true understanding of justice and laws as a society. Thrasymachus believes that in order to make laws that are beneficial to all, we must abandon the old method and start from scratch, without

Next, he brings in another premise that each form of government proclaims that justice is obeying these laws and injustice is breaking these laws. From these three premises, Thrasymachus concludes that justice is everywhere the same, the advantage of the stronger.

Therefore, Thrasymachus’ viewpoint in Book I of the Republic is that one’s life can be better if he is unjust because he will have the ability to take advantage of the just man. In fact, he states “that injustice, when practiced on a large enough scale, is stronger and freer and more successful than justice” (344 c) and is “good policy” (348 d).

Another objection, brought about by a radical and different theory of Justice is brought up by Plato in a conversation between Socrates and Thrasymachus. In this argument Thrasymachus defines justice as in the interest of the stronger. This basically means that justice belongs in the hands of the rulers, and that the rulers are whoever is stronger, therefore getting to a ruling position. Laws are then made, based on the ruling party’s interest, and only theirs. Those who violate such created laws, will get punished for breaking the law and so on and so forth. Socrates completely disagrees with this theory of justice and gives the analogy of a physician who is studying and exercising his power is in fact doing so in the interest of his patients, not himself. In

In Book I, Thrasymachus straightforwardly states that “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (Plato, 338c). He then defends his account in two arguments. The first argument is that the people who have more power get to decide the rules, and those in decision are simply ruling to their own advantages. This statement is supported by the example of ruling a city. According to Thrasymachus, cities are ruled differently by their natures. Democracy rules in a democratic fashion, meaning the laws favor the majority of the people; tyranny makes tyrannical laws, which favor the tyranny; and so on with the other ones. Nonetheless, what in common is that no matter what the laws are, the rulers declare what they have made to be just for their subjects, which in fact is to their own advantages. Since acting in accordance to the laws is just, those who behave in a

On this part of the meaning of justice Socrates offers a completely different view. He contradicted Thrasymachus’ views by stating that what is in the interest of the strong may not be that obvious after all, and that by making mistakes, the justice of the powerful has worked against his interest. Socrates also later offers a view on the definition of justice that states justice is “the right condition of the human soul”.