Plato’s Republic: Justice and Injustice in Thrasymachus' Account

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

ABSTRACT. This paper seeks to reject Socrates ' arguments against Thrasymachus ' account of the just and unjust in Plato 's Republic, and, in doing so, show that Thrasymachus ' account is in fact a coherent and plausible account of justice. I begin by describing the context of Socrates and Thrasymachus ' argument and what it would take for Socrates to overcome the Thrasymachian account. I then describe the Thrasymachian account and argue for its coherence. I attack the Socratic method of deconstructing Thrasymachus ' argument and show that Thrasymachus true argument remains unaddressed throughout the course of the their exploration and Republic as a whole. I conclude that Thrasymachus – although himself unaware – succeeds in proposing a plausible and defensible account of justice and that Socrates misleads both Thrasymachus and the reader to advance his own conception of justice.

Glaucon’s argument in book II of Republic concerns the issue of justice. From the outset Glaucon explains that justice is a social contract that emerges - between people who are roughly equal in power - for the reason being that the pain of experiencing unjust actions is greater than the benefits accrued from inflicting it. (Plato, 2008) In this essay I will first outline his argument and explain how the parable of the Ring of Gyges attempts to support his theory. I will then argue that I do not find his argument plausible and it falls just short of persuading the reader.

In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.

In parallel to the argument between the Just and Unjust speeches, ‘new’ triumphs over ‘old’ once again in the fight between Strepsiades and Pheidippides. Pheidippides declares to his father, “I will make it clearly apparent, by Zeus, that I was beating you with justice (Clouds, 1332). Throughout their argument, Pheidippides was applying the same techniques to his speech that the Unjust speech utilized. Their apparently cynical disrespect for social mores emphasizes the fact that what is ‘old’ is losing its strength within society. What is right is in palpable contrast to what is currently occurring in the social order. Strepsiades broached the suggestion that as a father he has nurtured Pheidippides from infancy to his adulthood. Because of this, Strepsiades insists that he has earned his son’s respect. However, Pheidippides is convinced

In the Republic, Plato uses reason to model the ultimate form of civilization where everyone achieves his/her human potential. This should not be confused with individual equality, for Plato sees a harmonious and virtuous community where citizens are under a hierarchy and working together for the greater good of the state. The question, however, remains: How does one achieve Plato’s ideal state when there is evil and deception in the world? In answering this question, Plato puts forth two arguments: an allegory to describe the complexities and necessities of reality, and a royal lie to carry out the ideal form of civilization. In this paper, I argue Plato’s Allegory of the Cave justifies the need for a royal lie found in

In the Republic, Socrates starts the discussion with the definition of justice. When Thrasymachus angrily interrupts and gives his own definition, he in fact takes an opposite view on justice and argues that injustice is more advantageous and profitable. Glaucon and Adiemantus further develop Thrasymachus’ view with a theory of the nature and the origins of justice and claim that justice is desired only for the sake of rewards. In Amazing Grace, injustice happens every day at every corner of Mott Haven, yet there are still a lot of citizens trying to lead a just life. In the conflict between the authorities and the Mott Haven citizens, the ceaseless injustice in Mott Haven, and some people’s just acts, Thrasymachan view of justice is reflected.

In book II of The Republic of Plato Glaucon says that he will "restore Thrasymachus' argument" (line 358c) that proves injustice is better than justice. He first talks about how justice came about. Then makes a second point that people practice justice without their own will and he ends with his third point that the unjust man's life is better then the just man's life. Glaucon backs up all of his points with examples of injustices and being just.

In Republic II, Glaucon and Socrates pose the question of whether justice is intrinsically good, or instrumentally good. Further, the two men wish to discover which life is best - the just life or the unjust one. While Glaucon argues that the unjust life is best, Socrates argues that the just life is truly better. In this paper, I will summarize both Glaucon’s and Socrates’ arguments, and provide a critical analysis of the opposing views.

The old Greek and Roman realms are two cases of where insubordinate activities now give a premise to advanced law. From the Greeks, we have come to know the narrative of Socrates by Plato, and the Roman age was the season of St. Perpetua, an early Christian lady. The destiny of those people is comparable – a capital punishment passed on by the general public they lived in. In spite of the fact that the closure of their lives is comparable, the distinctions that lie in the reasoning of their demise are more unpredictable, with key variables influencing their individual pre-predetermined future. In this, we will see, these elements influence their connections to the states and time periods in which they existed.

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

In order to question and reassess Thrasymachus’ view of justice, in this essay, I will first bring up cases for Thrasymachus being accused of being contradictory and inconsistent in his view for justice. For the second part of the essay, I will provide a counterargument in order to prove Thrasymachus’ consistency followed by a discussion on Socrates’ own contradiction in regards to his account of the city.

Book I of Plato's Republic could be a standalone piece based on all the important topics discussed between the characters in a mere chapter. One section of Book I stood out to me more than most, and that was Thrasymachus’s definition of justice. His observations on justice are often “seen as the first fundamental critique of moral values”. Thrasymachus describes justice as being in the interest of the stronger with an argument that ultimately holds more weaknesses than strengths.

In Plato’s The Republic and The Apology, the topic of justice is examined from multiple angles in an attempt to discover what justice is, as well as why living a just life is desirable. Plato, writing through Socrates, identifies in The Republic what he thought justice was through the creation of an ideal city and an ideal soul. Both the ideal city and the ideal soul have three components which, when all are acting harmoniously, create what Socrates considers to be justice. Before he outlines this city and soul, he listens to the arguments of three men who hold popular ideas of the period. These men act to legitimize Socrates’ arguments because he finds logical errors in all of their opinions. In The Apology, a different, more down-to-Earth, Socrates is presented who, through his self-defense in court, reveals a different, even contradictory, view of the justice presented in The Republic. In this paper, the full argument of justice from The Republic will be examined, as well as the possible inconsistencies between The Republic and The Apology.

In the Introduction of Plato's Republic, a very important theme is depicted. It is the argument of whether it is beneficial for a person to lead a good and just existence. The greatly argued position that justice does not pay, is argued by three men Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. By incorporating all three men into a collective effort I believe I can give a more flattering depiction of injustice.