Justice in Plato's "The Republic" Essay

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

It is evident that Thrasymachus was not convinced by Socrates’ argument, notwithstanding his agreement with Socrates’ points. In a nutshell, Thrasymachus does not tell us what justice really is in an explicit form. He rates justice on whom it harms or whom it empowers (i.e.: the rulers, the poor, the good man…).

The topic of justice first comes about through a conversation between Socrates and Cephalus. The two are reflecting upon their old age,

“What is justice?” This is a question that men have struggled with answering for centuries. Justice should be defined for the sake of all people, especially by rulers who attempt to make fair laws so that their society functions in an orderly fashion. In Book 1 of The Republic, Plato attempts to define exactly what justice is. To help determine this definition, he speaks through the philosopher protagonist of Socrates. Justice is first brought up in The Republic during Socrates’ trip to Piraeus. While traveling Socrates ends up gathering with his interlocutors and together, they talk about justice and how one would define it. Socrates debates with the men about the definition of justice and is presented with a definition of

However, I do feel quite a bit of compassion for his accusers. Socrates was changing their sons’ minds by making them question the supremacy and intelligence of the people whose wisdom was recognized in the state. He made young people question even the intelligence of their fathers. It should not have been easy for the fathers to stay put and listen to him philosophizing about his ideas of the world. No wonder Socrates had to beg them to listen to the end and not to interrupt at least three times throughout the Apology.

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

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.

I am now going to define some terms that pertain to the argument between Thrasymachus and Socrates. The Sophists were a presocratic group that earned a living by teaching young Greek men lessons in excellence and to speak intelligently and persuasively. Sophists, like Thrasymachus, believed in subjective truth. Subjective truths are truths that in some way depend on us. How we think or feel on a matter is a

Socrates’ three opponents in The Republic come in the form of Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus. Cephalus provides his opinion first, which is that justice is defined by, “truthfulness and returning anything we have borrowed (The Republic, 331C).” Socrates quickly counters, and says that Cephalus’ interpretation of justice cannot be right, because, “if one borrowed a weapon from a friend who subsequently went out of his mind

Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense against charges of corrupting the youth and heresy, reveal the ancient teacher’s view of justice as fairness and support of rule of law. In the Apology, Socrates faces a moral dilemma: to either accept his punishment for crimes he did not commit or to accept the assistance of his friends and escape death by the hand of the state. His choice to accept death in order to maintain rule of law reveals his belief of justice. He beliefs his punishment to be just not because he committed the crimes but because his sentence came through a legal process to which he consented. By sparing his life, he would weaken the justice system of Athens which he values above his own existence. This difference between the two men’s beliefs regarding justice draws the sharpest contrast in their views of effective leadership and government.

In Plato's Republic, the character Thrasymachus provides an intense yet short-lived appearance in the discussion of justice early in the story. Though he seems to almost completely withdraw from the discussion for the

This paper argues that Socrates makes a plausible case for justice. Socrates raised two main questions in the first two books of Plato’s Republic, what is justice? And why should we act justly? Thrasymachus and Glaucon both have different and more negative views of justice than Socrates. Throughout books one and two, Socrates, Glaucon and Thrasymachus go back and forth discussing the definition and application of justice in society. He starts his discussions with Glaucon and Thrasymachus by stating simply, “What is justice?”

Plato and Aristotle, arguably the most important philosophers of their time, both made attempts to define justice. Being that Aristotle was a student of Plato, their ideas share many similarities. Both viewed justice as the harmonious interaction of people in a society. However, Plato defined his ideal of justice with more usage of metaphysics, invoking his Form of the Good, while Aristotle took a more practical approach, speaking in terms of money and balance. Although Aristotle's ideal of justice may seem superior, upon further inspection, Plato's ideal of justice is the stronger.

Explain and evaluate the reasons given by Plato in the Republic, to support the contention that justice is superior to, or more beneficial than, injustice?