Ethical Egoism In Plato's The Republic

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.

The Republic by Plato examines many aspects of the human condition. In this piece of writing Plato reveals the sentiments of Socrates as they define how humans function and interact with one another. He even more closely Socrates looks at morality and the values individuals hold most important. One value looked at by Socrates and his colleagues is the principle of justice. Multiple definitions of justice are given and Socrates analyzes the merit of each. As the group defines justice they show how self-interest shapes the progression of their arguments and contributes to the definition of justice.

Plato was never satisfied with accepting other’s ideas or views of things in this world. Instead he would question everything to discover for himself what things in the world meant. Plato as seen in some of his writing such as “The Republic” uses numerous amounts of theoretical questions to try and get a deeper understanding of themes such as justice. Plato refuses to accept that justice is naturally good and injustice is bad as he writes “see, that to do

“What is justice?” This is a question that men have struggled with answering for centuries. Justice should be defined for the sake of all people, especially by rulers who attempt to make fair laws so that their society functions in an orderly fashion. In Book 1 of The Republic, Plato attempts to define exactly what justice is. To help determine this definition, he speaks through the philosopher protagonist of Socrates. Justice is first brought up in The Republic during Socrates’ trip to Piraeus. While traveling Socrates ends up gathering with his interlocutors and together, they talk about justice and how one would define it. Socrates debates with the men about the definition of justice and is presented with a definition of

In the end of Plato’s Republic Book I, Socrates and Thrasymachus who had just finished a set of vigorous arguments on what the definition for justice is and whether the just or the unjust life is the best life to live, come to a conclusion. Regarding the true definition of justice, at the end of Book I, Socrates mentions that their discussion have not led them to the true definition of justice (Republic 354b). On the other hand, their discussion on which life is more profitable does come to a conclusion, “So the just man is happy and the unjust man is miserable…but being miserable is not profitable, whereas being happy is” (Rep. 354a) Socrates says, indicating the just life tends to be more profitable than the unjust life. Following their

Plato creates a seemingly invincible philosopher in The Republic. Socrates is able to refute all arguments presented before him with ease. The discussion on justice in Book I of The Republic is one such example. Socrates successfully refutes each different view of justice presented by Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus. Socrates has not given us a definitive definition of justice, nor has he refuted all views of justice, but as far as we are concerned in Book I, he is able to break down the arguments of his companions.

Morality is likely the most debated topic of all time, especially in regards to our moral responsibility for each other. Throughout history many writers and philosophers have taken different angles the concept of morality and have applied it in many ways. This includes: Niccolò Machiavelli with The Prince (we will be looking at The Qualities of the Prince) and Plato with The Republic (we will be looking at the section The Allegory of the Cave. The Prince (1513) essentially lays out a how-to guide of how to obtain power and how to keep it; The Qualities of the Prince contains a list of qualities that one should appear to have while in power; this work will be used to represent the case against moral responsibility for others. The Republic

In response to Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus, Socrates seeks to show that it is always in an individual’s interest to be just, rather than unjust. Thus, one of the most critical problems regarding the Republic is whether Socrates defends justice successfully or not. Socrates offers three arguments in favor of the just life over the unjust life: first, the just man is wise and good, and the unjust man is ignorant and bad; second, injustice produces internal disharmony which prevents effective actions; and lastly, virtue is excellence at a thing’s function and the just person lives a happier life than the unjust person, since he performs the various functions of the human soul well. Socrates is displeased with the argument because a sufficient explanation of justice is essential before reaching a conclusion as to whether or not the just life is better than the unjust life. He is asked to support justice for itself, not for the status that follows. He propositions to look for justice in the city first and then to continue by analogy to discover justice in the individual. This approach will allow for a distinct judgment on the question of whether the just person is happier than the unjust person. Socrates commences by exploring the roots of political life and constructs a hypothetical just city that gratifies only fundamental human necessities. Socrates argues

In the Republic of Plato, the philosopher Socrates lays out his notion of the good, and draws the conclusion that virtue must be attained before one can be good. For Socrates there are two kinds of virtue; collective and individual. Collective virtue is virtue as whole, or the virtues of the city. Individual virtue pertains to the individual himself, and concerns the acts that the individual does, and concerns the individual’s soul. For Socrates, the relationship between individual and collective virtue is that they are the same, as the virtues of the collective parallel those of the Individual. This conclusion can be reached as both the city and the soul deal with the four main virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice.

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 Chapter 2 of Republic, Glaucon uses the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd to portray a pessimistic view of human nature. Plato, the author of Republic, uses his brother Glaucon to tell the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd. We are led to believe that Plato takes the myth and its implications on human nature very seriously by use of a personal character. The argument, originally given by Thrasymachus, contends that at the root of our human nature we all yearn for the most profit possible. It also contends that any man will act immorally if given free reign. The theory proves unplausible due to circularity in the argument and implications that prove untrue.

The ethical egoist is one who believes that it is morally right to act strictly in one's own self-interest. Understandably, this belief poses a threat to social cooperation and, therefore, clearly introduces a significant political problem. I believe that the best example of ethical egoism is displayed in Book I of Plato's The Republic. In this Book, Plato introduces the idea of ethical egoism, explains the political problem posed by it, and addresses the problem through the words of Socrates. I will use this paper to explain and clarify the arguments for and against the concept of ethical egoism, with specific focus on the political problem it poses and the proper approach to addressing that problem, in terms of Plato's social

workers, so that they do not desire to be in the ruler's position. It is seen

Wise man, no matter how many times you try, you will never be able to reach the essence of Justice. Your ignorance blinds your soul, and blinded, you content in the commodities of the world. Does this make you not wise, but a fool? Or is it better to say that Justice is unreachable and unsolvable, and for this reason, is beyond human understanding? Perhaps Glaucon is right to say that we are selfish individuals who expect to be benefited when we do good deeds or stay away from wrongdoings. Or maybe Socrates’s idealistic individual could actually be attained if one follows certain forms of disciplines that lead to virtue and Just character. The constant search for Justice has brought up more questions than answers. In the republic, Plato