Socrates ' Argument Of The Just And Unjust. Plato 's Republic Essay

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

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.

The Republic presents two very different views of justice as argued by two skilled thinkers. The beginning of the discussion starts off with Thrasymachus explaining what exactly he believes justice is; “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.” (338c) Although Thrasymachus’ definition is clear, Socrates attempts to spite him by using a wild comparison, by saying “If Polydamamas, the pancratiast, is stronger than we are and beef is advantageous for his body, then this food is also advantageous and just for us who are weaker than he is.” (338c) This statement from Socrates disgusts Thrasymachus because Thrasymachus was simply referring to “stronger” in the sense of being a ruler, not strong in the sense of being physically larger. To counter Socrates, Thrasymachus explains how different societies are ruled throughout the world whether it be tyrannically, democratically, or otherwise, and how the rulers, those who are strongest, are the ones who make the laws and they do so to their advantage. Thrasymachus establishes this by saying how, “A democracy sets down democratic laws; a tyranny, tyrannic laws; and the others do the same.” (338e) It is clear from this line of reasoning that Thrasymachus has a solid position that justice is, rightly or wrongly, the enforcement of the rule of law as dictated by the “strong leaders” that make the law.

As a defender of civic virtue, the significance of obligation and authority of one’s representative government epitomizes the magnitude of respect that Socrates had for Athenian Jurisprudence, irrespective of the fact that he was prosecuted against. In the accounts of the Apology and Crito, there exists a plethora of evidence that demonstrate Socrates’s adherence of institutionalized authority. His loyalty of the Athenian State derives from his notion that the obligation to surrender to the law manifests a just society. One may ask, “how is it possible for a persecuted man to continue to profess allegiance to a polity that sought his trial and execution”? Though many would not have the capacity to sustain such integrity, Socrates had his reasons in

Socrates was a great philosopher of the Greek world. He was quite an atypical and distinctive person. Being different from all the other philosophers of the land, Socrates was teaching his students ideas totally out of the ordinary from what the society believed was right. As a result, he displeased many people so much that they decided to get rid of him. Socrates was put to trial, accused of spoiling the youth of Athens, tried and sentenced to death. His personal defense is described in works two of his students: Xenophon and Plato. Both of them wrote papers called Apology, which is the Greek word for “defense”. In this essay I used Apology by Plato as the main resource, since it contents a more full account of the trial of Socrates and

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.

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.

Plato was an Ancient Greek philosopher who lived between 428-432 B.C. He wrote mainly in dialogues, to stay true to how Socrates communicated philosophy. Plato displayed what is considered Socrates’ philosophy throughout the dialogue The Apology. In The Republic, Socrates is mainly used as a mouthpiece to communicate Plato’s philosophy. Socrates follows a philosophy best explained as “I do not know”, whereas Plato tries to find the ultimate solution to philosophical problems. In this essay, I will argue how Socrates has the best philosophical approach compared to that of Plato.

In Plato’s works Apology and Crito there is an attempt by Socrates to defend himself in court and defend his choice to receive the death penalty when found guilty. Although he makes very valid and strong arguments throughout one can only wonder why such a wise person would choose death over life. The following essay will analyze three quotes from Apology and Crito, find the correlation between them, and reveal any flaws that may exsist inside these arguments made by Socrates.

On examining Thrasymachus' idea that it pays to be perfectly unjust, Socrates refutes this argument in Book 4 as he speaks of the souls three parts; wisdom, spirit, and desire. The civil war between these three parts is shown to be the cause of injustice, but before Socrates can correlate this with the regimes of certain

In Plato’s, “The Republic,” Socrates mediates conversation, as he challenges himself, and those around him to arbitrate the value of justice and conceptualize the significance that it holds for both the individual and the state. Throughout books I to VI, Socrates, Glaucon, and Adameitus constructively develop a sense of justice through argument and the formation of an ideal state. However, this embodiment reaches a deadlock in the middle of book V when Socrates pronounces that everything discussed thus far is nothing but an ideology, unless a philosopher king is manifested.

To summarize the contexts, Plato steps fourth to answer two questions. What is justice? And, Why should we be just? Socrates argues that there are confusions in conventional morality, while Thrasymachus rejects this belief and refutes that human behavior is and should be guided by self-interest. The dialogue begins hastily with an unsympathetic Thrasymachus offensive and in poor treatment of Socrates. After a brief argument with Socrates Thrasymachus starts by saying that Right is the ‘Interest of the stronger’ and that just behavior works to the advantage of other people, not to the person who behaves justly.

The Republic, written by Plato, examines one major question throughout the readings and it is “What is justice?” To the common eye justice can be easily defined with a quick look in a dictionary and is often defined as being fair. Plato’s main character, Socrates goes to much deeper lengths than this to define what justice is. This essay will look to reassess the discussion of justice between Socrates and Polemarchus and identify a problem that arises with justice, “the love of ones own”. To better explain this problem an example derived from Polemarchus’ and Thrasymachus’ versions of justice will be used. I will also briefly touch on the story of The Ring of Gyges to further convey how “the love of ones own” is an obstruction to justice.

In the Republic, Plato seeks to define justice and, through definition, show that justice is intrinsically worthwhile. In doing so, Plato sets out to explain the principal concept of political justice, and from this obtain a parallel model of individual justice. Essentially, justice is defined as a result of accurate logic or reasoning. However, it is quite important to note that the democratic regime discussed in the Republic is not the same as the known democratic regime of today. The democratic establishment discussed in the Republic is a direct democracy, which, even at that time, proved to be a failure. However, the overall idea of justice and injustice found in direct democracy oftentimes proves analogous to that of the current

Well-structured societies are built on a foundation of justice that brings unity, development, equality and respect between people. Throughout The Republic, Plato defines justice and its significance to the state and its individuals. In Book I, Thrasymachus and Socrates both provide their views on the definition of justice. The discussion takes place in Cephalus’s residence with his son Polymarchus. Through Plato’s dialogue, the definitions on justice by both Thrasymachus and Socrates will be discussed in this paper.