Socrates Refutation Against Thrasymachus

Inconsistency creeps into Thrasymachus’s argument, a) that Justice is in the interest of the stronger, and b) justice is another’s good, concluding that Justice is confined to the weaker. This view is demolished when Thrasymachus claims that a ruler can be either just or unjust; the inconsistency cannot be resolved. The two possibilities coincide in the weaker person not the stronger. As he favours injustice as the pursuit of one’s own interest, to paraphrase Cross, when Thrasymachus thinks about the just and unjust ruler, it is in terms of another’s good rather than in the interest of the stronger.

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.

The only way to benefit oneself is to be immoral and get away with it.

Justice is the advantage of the stronger according to Thrasymachus. He even goes a step farther to say that injustice is stronger and freer than justice, yet justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates shows that justice is in the receiver of it, not the provider. According to Socrates, a just man will be the healthier and happier man because he is wiser.

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

When Thrasymachus speaks of justice, he is speaking of justice between the rulers and those who are being ruled. All of the examples Thrasymachus presents to support his claim and definition of justice support the above said notion. For example, when the discussion about the advantage of the stronger, Thrasymachus provides an example of the ruling regimes in the city and those who obey them (338d). Another example can be found when Thrasymachus presents the idea of the shepherd and the cowherds, where he states that the shepherd is looking to gain only something that will benefit him, and does not really care about the sheep, thus signifying self-interest (343b, 345c). I don’t believe this is the right definition of justice. A ruler that will appeal only to his authority should not create Justice, but it should be something that is unanimously done to favor both the just and the unjust person. Additionally, I don’t support Thrasymachus definition that an unjust person is stronger and has a happier life. In today’s context, we know when one is unjust and does unjust actions he

In the Republic, Plato narrates a dialogue about justice and what it means between Socrates and some of his peers. Socrates argues with three of them about what is justice and is it to be just. Socrates begins his dialogue with Cephalus, then shifts the conversation to Polemarchus and then has Thrasymachus finish the debate. Each of them gave different perspectives to what justice means and what it is to be just. In this paper I will show how each one of their definition is unique yet can also be seen to be quite similar. I will also suggest which one of the definition I like to be right, if any.

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, Thrasymachus states, “Justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger.” This quote states that the government, whether it is a democracy, monarchy, tyranny, etc. those who rule only make laws and decisions that will benefit them. Socrates, trying to further understand his statement, breaks this statement down and they come to an agreement that as society, everyone under the government is subject to obey their rulers no matter what even if the ruler is not always reliable in making the right decision. This “right” decision, according to Socrates would be proving Thrasymachus’ statement to be true, but if the ruler is wrong then that would prove

When the argument is first discussed, Thrasymachus states that he feels as though living an unjust life is better because it “pays more” and that “a just man has the worst of it.” (25) He compares it to a business partnership. He says that the more honest of the two business partners never has the greater share, and always ends up paying more taxes (even if he has the same amount of property as the dishonest man.) I found this to be an

We have seen, through Socrates’s cross-examination of Polemarchus and Cephalus, that the popular thinking on justice is unsatisfactory. Thrasymachus shows us the nefarious result of this confusion: the Sophist’s campaign to do away with justice, and all moral standards, entirely. Thrasymachus, breaking angrily into the discussion, declares that he has a better definition of justice to offer. Justice, he says, is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger. Though Thrasymachus claims that this is his definition, it is not really meant as a definition of justice as much as it is a delegitimization of justice. He is saying that it does not pay to be just. Just behavior works to the advantage of other people, not to the person who behaves justly. Thrasymachus assumes here that justice is the unnatural restraint on our natural desire to have more. Justice is a convention imposed on us, and it does not benefit us to adhere to it. The rational thing to do is ignore justice

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.

Thyestes might lead one to answer the question, Is it possible for an individual to be just in an unjust world? The play seems to answer the question negatively. Thyestes appears to be a just man in the text and is treated horribly, although some would argue that he is not just regarding his previous actions of theft and adultery. A retort could be made by asserting that to judge a man’s justness one must look at his current action more than his past. In this text, Thyestes didn’t want to accept his brothers offer of power at first, but relenting at the end saying, “Then I accept. But in name alone will I wield the power that you’ve forced upon me. As for laws and arms, they will serve you, as will I.” This action and words show that Thyestes has been at least close to being a just man. Atreus, on the other hand, is absolutely unjust and since he is the king, he makes the world unjust. In the end, all that Thyestes gets for being just is having his kids killed and eating their remains, ruining his only chance to give them some honor with a proper burial. Even Thyestes’ kids are relatively just; they have not hurt anyone, admitting they appear a little power hungry. They end up being mercilessly killed one by one. Atreus is the only one in this play who seems to end up happier and better than when they started saying “Now I praise my actions, now victory is truly won. My deed would have been fruitless if you did not grieve so deeply.” Thyestes would undeniably turn irate

In Book I, Thrasymachus straightforwardly states that “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (Plato, 338c). He then defends his account in two arguments. The first argument is that the people who have more power get to decide the rules, and those in decision are simply ruling to their own advantages. This statement is supported by the example of ruling a city. According to Thrasymachus, cities are ruled differently by their natures. Democracy rules in a democratic fashion, meaning the laws favor the majority of the people; tyranny makes tyrannical laws, which favor the tyranny; and so on with the other ones. Nonetheless, what in common is that no matter what the laws are, the rulers declare what they have made to be just for their subjects, which in fact is to their own advantages. Since acting in accordance to the laws is just, those who behave in a

In addition to his definition, Thrasymachus argues the value of justice as a human or societal characteristic, claiming that injustice is far more beneficial to the individual. Thrasymachus asserts that tyranny: