Socrates Criticism Of Democracy

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.

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.

Reusi 1 Raye Reusi D. Ryals Writing 1 November 14, 2012 Socrates’ Stand on Democracy Having emphasized upon me the advantages of democracy, I have always believed that it is the best system to implement in a country. Ignoring the flaws and weaknesses of this type of system, I thought that the benefits outweigh all costs. I assume that giving the power to the people is better than having one person rule the state. However, in Plato’s account on the life of his mentor Socrates, we are able to see both sides of the spectrum: the pros and cons of democracy which are accounted in Plato’s dialogues, the Apology and the Crito. Socrates, having been accused of impiety, is brought to trial in front of the jury of Athens. In his defense, he points

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.

Only with great safeguards to protect the right of individuals to question can justice exist within democracy. Still, for all of the wrong that Socrates found in the Athenian political system, he viewed Athens as “the city that is greatest and best reputed for wisdom and strength”. This suggests that Socrates believes the Athenian form of government is compatible with justice. He simply fears that the potential of Athenian democracy will be squandered by corruption. He hopes that his questioning will cause the next group of leaders of his great city to be committed to justice in the same fashion he

Socrates’, Plato’s, and Aristotle’s main criticisms of democracy were based on both theory and precedents. Whereas Plato and Aristotle believed that democracy could lead to mob rule in part due to group-think based on a population’s impulses, Socrates advocated that governance should not be solicited based on the citizenry’s desires at any given time. Aristotle advocated that democracy was indeed the best form of government, or better said he believed democracy to be lesser of the forms of government. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all believed that only the wisest should govern because those governed might squander resources and wealth, make decisions based on emotion, and revolt due to a perceived or real notion of inequality.

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?”

In book VIII, Socrates discusses four types of constitutional regimes that he finds unjust. These are timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. Each government fails and passes on to the next one. Socrates explains that in the final regime, that is, tyranny, people experience the worst form of injustice. The tyrant lives a life that is more painful than that of a king.

In Plato’s Republic, various definitions of justice are discussed, but the extreme Sophist view expressed by Thrasymachus is the most shocking to the other characters. This paper serves to explain the arguments Socrates utilizes against Thrasymachus’ conception of justice.

At the age of 70, Socrates was put to death on charges of impiety and moral corruption of the youth. However, his trial, on with the political and social context that occurred, has guaranteed as much intervention from classicists and historians as his methods and arguments have from philosophers, with the concerning spectacle it rose addressing into question the most basic principles of Athenian democracy.

In The Republic, Plato attempts to deconstruct and solve a central question of government: who should rule. In tackling the quandary of justice, he considers the ideal polis or kallipolis, a collective unit of self-government, and the relationship between the structure of the Republic and its attainment. Plato pontificates that philosopher-kings should be the ultimate authority, they possess special knowledge, which is required to rule the kallipolis successfully and optimise the happiness of its citizens. Plato argues that “there will be no end to the troubles of states… humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in the world… and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands” (Plato, 212b-c). The kallipolis is a just city where political rule is predicated not on power, but knowledge. Nonetheless, Plato recognises that power plays an essential role in the function of the kallipolis and the modern state. Plato’s argument for the philosopher-kings’ rule is not realistic, however traces of the characteristics of his normative form of rule appear in the modern state. Nonetheless, it is necessary to highlight aspects of the modern state congruent to those of the kallipolis. The essay will conclude that, in terms of Plato’s argument, the philosopher-kings should govern; Plato advertises a republican political system, implemented through meritocracy.

The Greeks have defined democracy in its purest and simplest form as “rule by the people.” Today, many governments have converted to the democratic system, but one notable example of a democratic society is the city-state of Athens; which is also the birthplace of democracy. This way of ruling of, by, and for the people was so effective that it set the foundations for the democracies we see today. Although Athenian democracy was essentially the stepping-stones to the democratic society we have today; there were some major discrepancies such as their political structure, their restrictions on what constitutes a citizen, and their philosophies regarding war.

In The Republic, the topic of justice dominates the conversation in Books 1 and 2. Socrates, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus explore the definition of justice in the individual and state through a series of debates and discussions, with each of them arguing which is most advantageous, justice or injustice. For the majority of Books I and II Socrates defends his claim that justice is not only a good thing in and of itself, but also favorable for the state and individual for its consequences. Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus offer counterclaims to Socrates’ argument in order to elicit elaboration on the role of justice and its importance. While looking at each interlocutor’s arguments, one can see that they all are convincing, but with further analysis, each it flawed in proving whether justice or injustice is the most favorable. Based on the arguments proposed, I believe the views of injustice given by Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus benefit the individual in attaining short-term, extrinsic benefits. However, Socrates’ view of justice, that justice is in fact more favorable and advantageous than injustice, benefits the individual in gaining long-term and intrinsic, more complex benefits.

In book four of The Republic Socrates and his contemporary Glaucon create the parameters for an Ideal Society. Socrates build his argument for the Ideal State based on four virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. While making these virtues known, he also explains how these four pillars are also relevant to the individual. With these pillars, any society can be a just and successful one.

Through this view, Aristotle expresses his distrust of a total democracy that is parallel to the ideas of his mentors. Plato attacks democracy and describes the disbursement of political freedom to the masses as an intoxication of wine, claiming that a democratic city “gets drunk on too much unmixed freedom” (The Republic, 220). Plato details the filtration of this “drunkenness” from society disobeying rulers trickling down to the son disrespecting the father and eventually “equal rights in relations between the sexes” (The Republic, 221). Plato and Aristotle share this skepticism of democracy.