Human Nature and Moral Theory in Plato’s Republic Essay

Morality is likely the most debated topic of all time, especially in regards to our moral responsibility for each other. Throughout history many writers and philosophers have taken different angles the concept of morality and have applied it in many ways. This includes: Niccolò Machiavelli with The Prince (we will be looking at The Qualities of the Prince) and Plato with The Republic (we will be looking at the section The Allegory of the Cave. The Prince (1513) essentially lays out a how-to guide of how to obtain power and how to keep it; The Qualities of the Prince contains a list of qualities that one should appear to have while in power; this work will be used to represent the case against moral responsibility for others. The Republic

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

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.

Plato creates a seemingly invincible philosopher in The Republic. Socrates is able to refute all arguments presented before him with ease. The discussion on justice in Book I of The Republic is one such example. Socrates successfully refutes each different view of justice presented by Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus. Socrates has not given us a definitive definition of justice, nor has he refuted all views of justice, but as far as we are concerned in Book I, he is able to break down the arguments of his companions.

In Plato’s The Republic, Socrates expresses his belief that in order for a state and its people to be functioning at their best, every citizen ought to do what they have the most character for, or what they are most qualified to do. Whether it is craftsmanship, guarding the city, playing music, or healing the sick, Socrates thinks that everyone should make his or her living doing one thing that they are skilled at, and one thing only. In order to ensure that only the best guardians are guarding the state, and only the most fit to rule become rulers, and so on, Socrates proposes the myth of the metals. He says to Glaucon that such an “audacious fiction” is necessary to convince the people that their livelihoods are beyond their choice and out of their control. The myth of the metals contains various invented truths, the first being that the state does not educate or train any citizen in their youth; instead, it is the earth that cultivates each person’s characteristics and skills. In this way, everyone has different inherent talents that are specially selected by God. God mingles gold into those who have the power to command others and who have claim to the greatest honor in society. He makes others with silver, which He deems best fit to guard the city as auxillaries, or soldiers. And finally, He composes the craftsmen, farmers, and other common citizens with brass and iron. God commands the rulers of the state to

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

Thrasymachus’s view is that “morality is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger party”. He states that this is what justice is and justice in this sense is right and wrong. He states that morality is to the advantage of the current government, so in a sense he is saying that the government/ person of power has the right to make laws to determine whether something is right or wrong and the ruled have to follow these laws. To say it in one sentence, justice is the tool that is used to make the ruled work for the benefit of the strong. I think that Thraysmachus’s believes that the very core of morality consists in the powerhouse of the current government because they can rule and force their interests upon the ruled. So Socrates tries

The crux of this argument will focus on three of Plato’s works: Gorgias, Apology, and The Republic.

The introduction deals mainly with a twofold question: first what is justice? Second, why should we be just? He answers the first one as follow: justice is indeed both wisdom and virtue. He said that it is injustice that produces factions, hatreds, and quarrels among themselves, and justice that produce unanimity and friendship. He also said that justice is virtue of the soul.

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

believes that the son will realize to be just is only worth it if you can get a

In Plato’s Republic, Socrates begins a debate on the definition of justice. It starts off as a simple discussion on what justice means to some people. Eventually the discussion moves on how justice comes about it in an ideal city. Socrates eventually comes to the idea that an ideal city must have four virtues. These virtues happen to be: courage, wisdom, moderation, and justice. However, the only two virtues that applies to the city as a whole is justice and moderation. Whereas, courage is associated in the warriors and wisdom is associated with the rulers. Justice can not be found where moderation does not appear. According to Plato, justice is one of the main causes of happiness. There is no justice without moderation, and there is no happiness without justice. Therefore, moderation is important for the city and the individual to have to be just.

In addition to his definition, Thrasymachus argues the value of justice as a human or societal characteristic, claiming that injustice is far more beneficial to the individual. Thrasymachus asserts that tyranny:

Plato’s Republic is actually an account that Plato transcribed that involved Socrates and a few guests. First they discuss the merits of old age but the subject changes to justice. You have a few different takes on the definition of justice. Cephalus a rich, well-respected elder of the city who is a business man. His is the first to give a definition. The he leaves and his son finishes the definition. Socrates uses common since to disprove this definition. Thrasymachus who is a sophist, a teacher and someone who thinks they have wisdom but only has knowledge. Thrasymachus says justice is the strong surviving, which Socraties disproves. The topic of discussion is Justice and it is the main human experience in this text.

In modern moral philosophy there are four major points. The first is Relativism, which is the doctrine that morals are a matter solely of personal opinion. There is an objection to it that is to society, it is freighting to have someone live by this concept. There is also the moral point of view. With this there can be some common consent. Most modern philosophers look for the same thing as Plato, the common reason moral principle. The first idea about this is that we must at least be capable of non-selfish motives. Kant, a German philosopher, was from the 1800s. He proposed that the moral principle could be built from a widely accepted religious belief. For instance, the Golden Rule, which means act the way you want to be treated. There is a flaw to that rule though. The Sado Masochist is a person who enjoys to be hurt. If they would follow the Golden Rule, they would be treating others by inflicting pain. Kant notes that motives should then be focused on. To do this the motives would need to be universalized. Consider a Sado and possible his girlfriend. The Sado would want the girlfriend to cause him pain but the girlfriend would possible want to be kind and affectionate. Another way of viewing this would be using the veil of ignorance. By using this, the difference between the victim and the aggressor is indistinguishable and that way you could be put into someone else’s shoes.