The Definition of Justice Essay

In Book I of the Republic after trying not to intervene in the discussion between Socrates and Polemarchus, Thrasymachus abruptly inserts himself into the conversation to offer his definition of justice. He defines justice as “the advantage of the stronger” (Plato 338c). Thrasymachus goes on to elaborate that the advantageous are the rulers of cities and that it is the ruling element in each city that makes the laws has the power. He claims that each ruler makes laws to its own advantage declaring the laws to be just for their subjects and will punish anyone who disobeys the laws as lawless and unjust. While Socrates agrees that justice is some sort of advantage he has a few objections to Thrasymachus’ definition. With respect to Thrasymachus’ view of justice this paper will reveal one of Socrates main objections to it, the strengths and weaknesses of the objection and presume any possible responses Thrasymachus may have to Socrates objection.

Human nature drives individuals to define the most perplexing concepts; however, understanding the true meaning refers to more than its denotation. The definition of justice proves to be a conflicting view point, dating back to Socrates’s attempted explanation in Plato’s The Republic. Within the first book, Socrates finds himself exposing the flaws behind three definitions of justice proposed by the traditionalists of Athens. Through Socrates’s ridicule of physical attributes equating to justice, he disproves these perceived virtues and conveys the necessity for a lack of physicality.

Thracymachus's arguments are realistic cases adjusted to the circumstances of the Greek polis where the dominant imposed their wills by the mere fact of having influences and material resources. This personage visualizes the life in a superficial and worldly way when it responds to Socrates that (P.86 344c) “justice is what is advantageous for the stronger, while injustice is profitable and advantageous for oneself so that the weak will serve the interests of the strong.” However, Socrates made a deeper approach in the human conscience and rejected the worldly pleasures that make a man an empty being and without conscience. Responding (P. 87 345a) “I don’t believe that injustice is more profitable than justice, not even if you should give it

He brings up the argument that injustice is more profitable than justice and supports his argument with three points: A just person always gets less than an unjust person when a partnership ends, a just person pays more taxes and gets less refunds than an unjust person does, and a just person, when given a ruling position, always have worse interpersonal relationships because he refuses to benefit his relatives and acquaintances through his position (343d-344a). Thrasymachus then stresses: “A person of great power outdoes everyone else (344a).” That is, a strong person always wants more and tries to get what does not belong to him. The unjust act of outdoing makes those who are just and refuse to be corrupted by injustice suffer. And when this injustice is on a large scale, for example, tyranny, it will not be condemned or punished. Quite the opposite, people praise complete injustice and call those who are unjust “happy and blessed (344b)”. Therefore, Thrasymachus concludes, while justice is merely what is advantageous to the stronger, injustice is what actually benefits

Quickly, Socrates asked wether it would be just to return a gun owed to a friend out of his mind, who had originally lent the gun when he was sane. Those involved in the discussion agreed on the need for further refinements to the original statement, but before they could continue a gentleman by the name of Thrasymachus wanted to interject and force Socrates to give his definition of justice. After Socrates states that he doesn’t know and would like to learn, Thrasymachus then says that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger, the stronger being the established rule. Socrates’ rebuttal was to say that the ruler actually rules for the benefit of his subjects, the ones he is craftsman of. For to be a ruler is a craft and a craft was established as that which provides what is advantageous to it’s subject. Then to continue their discussion, Socrates wanted to address Thrasymachus’ view of wether the life of an unjust person is better, or more profitable, than that of a just one. Thrasymachus declared that injustice was stronger and had more power than justice - that it was better to be unjust than just. He said that to be unjust was to be clever and good, while to be just was the opposite. They went on to debate which was clever and good and which was bad. It was discussed that who tried to outdo whom defined the clever and good versus the

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.

Thrasymachus thinks that justice is not vice but high-minded innocence, while injustice is good counsel and is good as well as prudent and profitable. He puts injustice in the camp of virtue and wisdom, and justice among their opposites. However, through the refutation, Socrates concludes his understanding of virtue: justice is being virtue and wisdom, and injustice both vice and lack of learning; justice is more profitable than injustice.

Agitated by Socrates’ line of reasoning, Thrasymachus proceeds to blurt out a revised version of his original statement. Thrasymachus claims that injustice is freer and stronger than justice and that it results in a happier life. As in the former definition, he does not consider so much what justice is as what it does; he rates the subject in regards to its advantageousness or lack thereof. Essentially, this definition is an extreme extension of the previous one. Also, the example he uses for support – that of a tyrant made powerful and thus happy through injustice – hearkens back to his initial definition as ruling being the advantage of the stronger. It is clear that Thrasymachus has not been convinced by Socrates’ last argument, despite his apparent agreement with Socrates’ points. He is arguing in different terms, but in actual substance this new development is little more than a bare contradiction of

There are two parts to Thrasymachus’s claim in which we must consider. Firstly, Thrasymachus tells Socrates, ‘And their subjects must do what they order and this is justice’.

Polemarchus then conveys his view of justice. He says that justice is doing good to friends and evil to enemies (332d). Socrates replies that a just man would never do evil, even against his enemies. When something inflicts harm on a horse, this causes the horse to deteriorate from its excellence (335b). When a man is harmed the man deteriorates from what it is to be a good man (335c). Therefore, a just man would be unable to be unjust to any human, as it would be unjust regardless. Therefore, it is only an unjust man that could be unjust (335e). Next, Thrasymachus attempts to define what justice is (after receiving his fee) (336d). He defines justice as whatever is in the interest of the stronger party (338c). Each government, whether it's

Glaucon, dissatisfied with previous appraisals of justice, seeks to challenge Socrates by strengthening Thrasymachus’ defence of injustice in book 1. ‘This is exactly what he gives us – 3 arguments that support Thrasymachus’ view that injustice itself is more choice worthy than justice itself’.

After, Thrasymachus makes his claim that justice is nothing more than the advantage of the strong in Book One of the Republic (Republic I.336b-340). Socrates refutes his claim by coming back at him with three counter arguments to Thrasymachus claim or idea of justice. First, Socrates brings up that the view Thrasymachus has on justice, because it promotes injustice as a virtue rather than a vice. He gets Thrasymachus to admit that this is a true statement. In this idea of justice life is seen as a competition to see who can get the most money or become the most powerful, thus if this is true, whoever is the most successful at this competition of life they then would have the greatest virtue, which Socrates does not seem as a true representation

Socrates Refutation of Thrasymachus’ Definition of Justice In Plato’s Republic he attempts to uncover the fundamental question of what is justice. He does this through creating an open and engaging dialogue between his characters. His central character, Socrates, provides a voice for many of Plato’s personal views while several other interlocutors help present traditional Greek conceptions of justice and other criticisms. In book I of the Republic, Socrates refutes an interlocutor’s—Thrasymachus—concept of justice.

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

Plato’s interpretation of justice as seen in ‘The Republic’ is a vastly different one when compared to what we and even the philosophers of his own time are accustomed to. Plato would say justice is the act of carrying out one’s duties as he is fitted with. Moreover, if one’s duties require one to lie or commit something else that is not traditionally viewed along with justice; that too is considered just by Plato’s accounts in ‘The Republic.’ I believe Plato’s account of justice, and his likely defense against objections are both clear and logical, thus I will endeavor to argue his views as best as I can.