Socrates' Plausible Case for 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.

Did you ever wonder about how people did things back in the old ages? They had a system like we do now, they believed in wrong and right. How? Well, here is a problem, which lies between who is wrong or right and how they determined this. There were a couple philosophers that thought their view of justice was the best. Between Thramarchus and Socacrate they had different views and how Socrates responses to Thrasymachus explain some things. What does justice mean? How does it help with problems to resolve them? Could Thrasymachus and Socrates really agree? What wills Socrates idea is to support is argument? Is his claim true? Justice is an important role played in our society.

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.

The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those

In Plato’s Republic, Socrates argues for the importance of living a just life. However, Glaucon asks why any person favors the just life over an unjust one. Glaucon would like an answer regarding this type of justice, and if it is good only for its results or good in itself. Socrates argues that justice in the individual is the balance between sprit, reason, and desire (scc. 435a). Socrates’ account of justice, displays a life in which a justice provides benefits not only for the individual, but also society. In this case, Socrates account of justice, does not provide a sufficient reason to be just. Socrates parallel of justice and health cannot answer Glaucon’s request fully. Therefore, without sufficiently proving the inherent good of justice his claim falls apart.

This assignment is a work on the extract from Plato’s The Republic where Socrates and Thrasymachus discusses and argues about the nature of Justice in the society. Thrasymachus says in The Republic "Listen—I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger". It can be noticed that Thrasymachus is stating a moral judgment He also states that justice is a tool for those who are weak. A conclusion is based on the fundamentals of the topic of the argument. Even if the views are completely different, there is a still some sense of similarity in Thrasymachus views of justice and what Socrates view Justice as.

Socrates states justice is just to give back what you owe to anyone but, Socrates is confused with the definition given by Simonides about justice. Polemarchus suggested Simonides definition about justice is friends own friends are a good thing. Socrates adds if a friend owns his friends it’s not harm but if an enemy owns emeries is bad, Polemarchus agreed with this statement. Then Socrates starts to cross examine Polemarchus asking about what medicine owe? Polemarchus answers drug, drinks to body, and food; then Socrates continues asking Polemarchus what justice owes. Polemarchus answers justice is doing well to friends and harm to enemies. Socrates moves on with his cross examining Polemarchus

For centuries, people have been asking the question, what is justice? Although justice is not sincerely defined in Plato’s The Republic, both Socrates and Thrasymachus enter into a deep discussion over what justice truly is. After Socrates disproves Cephalus and Polemarchus explanations of justice, Thrasymachus declares that justice is “simply what is in the interest of the stronger party” (338c). Furthermore, he debunks justice altogether, arguing that justice is the strong exploiting the weak and that the unjust lifestyle is better than the just lifestyle. The two elements that this paper will break down is Thrasymachus’s idea of justice and how he thinks that being unjust is better than being just.

In book I, we find Socrates in a discussion to find what is Justice. Every definition offered by Socrates’ friends is shot down as being inadequate. Finally, Thrasymachus accuses Socrates of only stating what is wrong with everyone’s ideas, and offers no definition of his own. However, I think that Plato purposefully left the question of ‘what is Justice’ unanswered by Socrates, because Plato believes in Thrasymachus’s notion of Justice.

In Plato’s, The Republic, Book I, Socrates, Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, and Adiemantus delve into one of the worlds’ most deeply debatable topic. Their story begins as they are on their way home from Glaucons’ party and through a series of events come into an in depth discussion about the meaning of justice and the reason to be just. Each presented their definition for justice, and at one point Thrasymachus says, “Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. ”1 It is my opinion that his definition is one of the more significant ones because of how much meaning it holds.

Justice is a philosophical concept of relevance or truth in ethics. Although justice is arguably fundamental to any ethical system, the definition of “justice” and what is “just” is widely disputed among philosophers and thinkers. Various conceptions of justice place it in dependence of a legal system, equality or fairness, religious teachings or human rationality. What is just, what is to be done, and the response to actions that go against what is just is the only concern with justice (Black Matter, 1974). To be clear, the word ‘justice’ in translation of Plato’s Republic and other texts of that era is fundamentally different than the notion of justice in ethics today. One of the foundations of our society is the presence and function of justice. It is a subject often taken for granted without much thought. What is justice? According to Thrasymachus – the main character in The Republic, he asserts that justice is an important good. As stated in The Republic, Thrasymachus’ slated argument consists of three parts which he attempts to explain and defend to all in attendance. Thrasymachus commences his justice argument by defining what justice is, he then explains the role of a ruler by likening him to a craftsman of some sort, and finally, he uses his efforts to identify the disadvantages that come with a man being just versus being unjust (Hourani, 1962).

In the opening two books of the Republic, Thrasymachus, along with Glaucon and Adeimantus, proposes fascinating arguments against the definition of justice. According to Thraysmachus, Justice, by its nature, is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. Despite Socrates’s strong disagreement, many just and unjust incidents in Amazing Grace serve as great examples to support Thrasymachus’s view. In the following paragraphs, I am going to first summarize the arguments from Thrasymachus and Glaucon, and then analyze how the examples from Amazing Grace validate the traditional definition of justice.

The book The Republic by Plato, was written in Athens around 380 B.C. Around that time Plato wasn’t so happy with the conditions in Athens. This book is focused on the conception of justice and what it is to be just. This theory has been presented differently by each of the characters in the book, which are Cephalus, Polymarchus, Thrasymachus, and Glaucon. However, Socrates is the one who is given a challenge: to prove that justice is good and desirable.

There are two historical miscarriages of justice that haunt the psyche of the western world. Archetypes of injustice that stand as monuments to the imperfections of man’s ability to cast rightful judgment upon his brothers for the sake of the common good. As such, the men burned by the rampant fervor of mobs and disillusioned magistrates alike, though they were meant to be set alit like funeral pyres to the credo they espoused, then fade away. The embers of martyrdom rather acted as a catalyst that allowed their ideals to shine brighter than ever through the ashes of injustice. These men are Jesus of Nazareth and Socrates of Athens. As such, Socrates found himself a victim of the fleeting passions of democracy and the rampant fear of an era. His trial and subsequent execution hence only succeeded in condemning Athenian democracy rather than in proving his guilt.

Socrates will say that justice is a quality that appears in each individual but also as a community and that the major one between these two is in the community. According to him individuals cannot self-suffice therefore they need someone else to survive, that way of coming together into a community and in settlement is defined to be the state (Socrates 19). He then goes on to explain how a just and good society will be one in which workers do what they truly love, but then share what they do with others in the community, for instance, a farmer he loves planting crops but he not only does it for his own interest of eating but rather for the interest of the state. With this in mind, there has to be a system established so that there is a fair