The Republic by Plato

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.

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

The debate moves on as Thrasymachus tries to define justice. Thrasymachus makes two critical points in his argument. He first says that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Thus the rulers govern on their own behalf. However Socrates shows that in fact the rulers are at the mercy of their subjects and make decisions that can be good or bad for the people and it is the right of the people to follow these actions or not. He states that "no knowledge considers or prescribes for the advantage of the stronger, but for that of the weaker, which it rules." [342d]

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.

To start with, Thrasymachus argues that it is profitable to act unjustly and harmful to act justly. When Thrasymachus first defines justice as nothing other than the advantage of the stronger, he refers to the ruler, which is the stronger, and the ruled (Plato, 338c). In this context, he believes that the ruling party in any type of regime – tyranny, democracy, or aristocracy – makes laws to its own advantage and defines the acts to its disadvantage as unjust (338d – 339a). For the subjects it is just to obey the laws and serve the ruler’s interest, so if there is a conflict between the interests of the ruler and the subjects, the ruler seeks what benefits itself through laws

In order to question and reassess Thrasymachus’ view of justice, in this essay, I will first bring up cases for Thrasymachus being accused of being contradictory and inconsistent in his view for justice. For the second part of the essay, I will provide a counterargument in order to prove Thrasymachus’ consistency followed by a discussion on Socrates’ own contradiction in regards to his account of the city.

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.

Before analysing the strengths and weaknesses of Thrasymachus’s argument we must look at a key fault in his definition, which is he doesn’t give one. Instead of defining justice he ends up describing it. Thrasymachus says that justice is in “the advantage of the established ruling body” but does not define what justice is. The conversation

Socrates responds to Thrasymachus’ argument that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger by saying that justice is actually what is advantageous for the weaker. He gives an example of a horse trainer. The horse trainer is obviously the superior of the two and in charge of the horse but it does what is advantageous to the horse not himself. The same goes for a doctor who does what is good for his patients and a captain does what is advantageous for his sailors.

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

Thrasymachus' perspective of human nature is that we all seek to maximize power, profit and possessions. He gives the argument that morality is not an objective truth but rather a creation of the stronger (ruling) party to serve its own advantage. Therefore definitions of "just" and "unjust", "right" and "wrong", "moral" and "immoral" are all dependent upon the decree of the ruling party. Thrasymachus argues that acting "morally", in accordance with the ruling party, benefits the ruling party, while acting "immorally", injures the ruling party and benefits oneself.

On examining Thrasymachus' idea that it pays to be perfectly unjust, Socrates refutes this argument in Book 4 as he speaks of the souls three parts; wisdom, spirit, and desire. The civil war between these three parts is shown to be the cause of injustice, but before Socrates can correlate this with the regimes of certain

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 Plato’s, “The Republic,” Socrates mediates conversation, as he challenges himself, and those around him to arbitrate the value of justice and conceptualize the significance that it holds for both the individual and the state. Throughout books I to VI, Socrates, Glaucon, and Adameitus constructively develop a sense of justice through argument and the formation of an ideal state. However, this embodiment reaches a deadlock in the middle of book V when Socrates pronounces that everything discussed thus far is nothing but an ideology, unless a philosopher king is manifested.