Creon's Thrasymachus Concept Of Justice

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

If the book has villain, was his or her punishment justified? The main Villain in this novel is a character known as Creon. Creon is a descendent of the Greek Gods and has special powers just like the main character of this story, Helen, and her companions. The book labels these humans with extraordinary abilities as Scions.

Firstly, we must understand why justice is so important for this argument to hold any weight. Justice is something that has been talked about in many philosophical discussions but the first in depth conversation is from Plato’s Republic. In book one three different definitions are analyzed. The first is where you speak truthly and give back what you take from others, secondly Thrasymachus’s definition is that justice is to the advantage of the stronger. The definition that ends their conversation is that justice is better than being preyed on by others although not as good as always taking advantage of people. The reason why this conversation is discussed so in depth is because justice is seen as a virtue by Plato. This is on an individual level and a governmental level, as Thrasymachus discusses it. Plato believes that “justice in the city is the same thing as justice in the individual”. Given that information it’s obvious that justice is an overarching theme of the developing of the perfect republic in the book. Its viewed by Plato that justice is a “master virtue in its own sense” because if you and your city are just than everything else will be working together too. This is an elevated way of viewing justice and since its spoken about so much in the book it’s very important to hear Thrasymachus’s opposing argument to it.

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 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

Justice is the advantage of the stronger according to Thrasymachus. He even goes a step farther to say that injustice is stronger and freer than justice, yet justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates shows that justice is in the receiver of it, not the provider. According to Socrates, a just man will be the healthier and happier man because he is wiser.

Thrasymachus represents and argues for the ideas of the ethical egoist, which are founded on the concept of pursuing self-interest alone while simply disregarding the interests of others. Thus, ethical egoists wish to completely do away with justice and other similar concepts of moral standards. Thrasymachus believes that "justice is simply the advantage of the stronger" (The Republic, Book I, 338c). He believes that the entire idea of justice is a convention created by powerful men and used as an excuse to exercise power and force weaker men to obey their laws. When men are forced to obey laws, they are then obeying the wishes of the powerful. Therefore, the ethical egoist does not believe that being just is worthwhile because it only works toward the advantage of other people―those people that are most powerful―and thus adhering to justice is not beneficial to us. He believes that a ration and good man will ignore justice entirely.

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

When Thrasymachus speaks of justice, he is speaking of justice between the rulers and those who are being ruled. All of the examples Thrasymachus presents to support his claim and definition of justice support the above said notion. For example, when the discussion about the advantage of the stronger, Thrasymachus provides an example of the ruling regimes in the city and those who obey them (338d). Another example can be found when Thrasymachus presents the idea of the shepherd and the cowherds, where he states that the shepherd is looking to gain only something that will benefit him, and does not really care about the sheep, thus signifying self-interest (343b, 345c). I don’t believe this is the right definition of justice. A ruler that will appeal only to his authority should not create Justice, but it should be something that is unanimously done to favor both the just and the unjust person. Additionally, I don’t support Thrasymachus definition that an unjust person is stronger and has a happier life. In today’s context, we know when one is unjust and does unjust actions he

Thrasymachus first thesis discusses justice as an advantage of the stronger. The thesis has a different metaphysical kind that asserts nature into reality. Thrasymachus considers that justice as an advantage of the more substantial favors philosophers as part of moralism just as Cephalus and Polemarcus maintain the same concept and idea. The second thesis of Thrasymachus entails that injustice pays. Based on the case studies that Thrasymachus gives, injustice pays by considering that the practices that humans participate in might be not recommended but nobody cares since humans assume moral realism.

In the beginning of Antigone, Creon and his people firmly believe in the power of his authority and his leadership of the city of Thebes. When Creon argues with his son Haemon, he tells him “that man the city places in authority, his orders must be obeyed,” so much that “whoever places a friend above the good of his own country, he is nothing” (748-750, 203-204). The citizens place Creon in authority, so he urges his people to obey his edicts and orders because their compliance is essential to his position. In his opinion, authority is the most meaningful entity in Greek life, regardless of friendship or family ties. For example, even though Antigone is his son’s fiancée, Creon refuses to absolve her of her crimes because in his eyes, no one should be exempt from the law. The city-state agrees with Creon, illustrated when the chorus sings, “When he weaves in the laws of the

In this paper, I am going to argue that living a just life is more worthwhile than living an unjust life. I will do this with evidence provided from the text. The argument in question is why (given the advantages of living an unjust life) would anyone want to live a just life. This very question was a major debate that carried on during most of the text of The Republic of Plato. Throughout the text we see Socrates, Thrasymachus, Adeimantus and Glaucon take on this challenge. They thoroughly go through what they feel is just, and unjust. They also outline the benefits of living both types of ways. They take the various ideals discussed and pick them apart in every which way possible. There is no point of view that is brushed under the rug. After seeing the stance of several of the characters in this book, I see myself siding with Socrates on many levels. This challenge is taken on heavily and incorporated in many of the other concepts discussed within Socrates’ circle.

This allows the rulers to dictate exactly who will serve what purpose in society following the political and economic structure without the individuals questioning the system. Because the strongest and wisest people carry the most power, they will have the ability to make the judgements for assigning citizens to their classes, creating laws, and creating sanctions. Because they’re known to have the best judgement, the things they say and do and are considered the most just, which supports Thrasymacus’ claim that justice is the advantage of the

Creon?s regard for the laws of the city causes him to abandon all other beliefs. He feels that all should obey the laws set forth by him, even if other beliefs, moral, or religions, state otherwise. Antigone, on the other hand, holds the beliefs of the gods in high reverence. She feels that the laws of the gods should be obeyed above all others, especially when in respect to family. Her beliefs in ?The sacred laws that Heaven holds in honor? are for more important than those set by the king (Antigone 78). The king cannot, and should not in the gods? eyes, override her belief in the

Furthermore, justice in its true form cannot be used solely for the advantage of the stronger without the masses acknowledging the injustices being imposed upon them, as Thrasymachus suggests is the case. For justice is one of the many characteristics of morality, which is considered to be intrinsic based on an inner conviction.7 Therefore, if the many were acting against said inner conviction wholly for the benefit of the stronger,