The Role Of Justice In Republic

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

The debate between Thrasymachus and Socrates begins when Thrasymachus gives his definition of justice in a very self-interested form. Thrasymachus believes that justice is only present to benefit the ruler, or the one in charge – and for that

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]

“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

The position Thrasymachus takes on the definition of justice, as well as its importance in society, is one far differing from the opinions of the other interlocutors in the first book of Plato’s Republic. Embracing his role as a Sophist in Athenian society, Thrasymachus sets out to aggressively dispute Socrates’ opinion that justice is a beneficial and valuable aspect of life and the ideal society. Throughout the course of the dialogue, Thrasymachus formulates three major assertions regarding justice. These claims include his opinion that “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,” “it is just to obey the rulers,” and “justice is really the good of another […] and harmful to the one who obeys and serves.” Socrates

What is justice? According to Socrates, to be just is what every individual is conditioned to strive for. Those who act unjustly are guided by ignorance and only they themselves believe they are doing good. A core ideal of Socrates was that everyone should do good and avoid wrong. His views on law and justice are shaped around this ideal.

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.

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

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.

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?”

Although Socrates encourages questioning authority, he focuses on achieving morality and justice. He believes that

Thrasymachus’ definition of justice represents the doctrine of “Might makes right” in an extreme form. By this, he means that justice is nothing but a tool for the stronger parties to promote personal interest and take advantage of the weaker. Here, Thrasymachus treats the ruler as someone who imposes his “rights” by sheer force, and believes that the ruler-subject relation is a zero-sum game. As he states later in Republic Book 1, “ ‘just’ means serving the interest of the stronger who rules, at the cost of the subject who obeys” (Plato, 1941, 25). A perfect example of such a ruler is the tyrant, who has the will and the power to do good to himself and his friends and to harm his enemies. This is not a theory of social contract: it is not suggested that the subjects have ever made a bargain with the ruler, sacrificing some of his liberty to gain the benefits of a social order.

In book II of Republic we are not introduced to Glaucon. He is more concerned as supposed to Thrymachucus with the importance of justice. He supports Thraymachus reasoning that nobody wants to be just by illustrating the story “Ring of Glazes”(line 359d -360b). A story about, a shepherd who was working for a king, found a ring and realizes this object makes him invisible. While he was invisible he committed the desires of men that is to kill the king and sleep with his wife. Thus, concluding one can become unjust when they are not caught. One is only good, due to the fact that they’re afraid of the consequences and they’re looking for benefit. If one can act unjustly without facing penalties, they would. As a result there is no reason to be

Therefore, Thrasymachus’ viewpoint in Book I of the Republic is that one’s life can be better if he is unjust because he will have the ability to take advantage of the just man. In fact, he states “that injustice, when practiced on a large enough scale, is stronger and freer and more successful than justice” (344 c) and is “good policy” (348 d).

Explain and evaluate the reasons given by Plato in the Republic, to support the contention that justice is superior to, or more beneficial than, injustice?