Thrasymachus 'Idea Of Justice In Plato's Republic'

In Plato’s The Republic, there are several accounts of justice that are presented throughout the dialogue, especially in Book I. One of these accounts is presented by Socrates, in which he believes that justice is not harming anyone under any circumstances. Socrates first presents this argument when he questions if it is just to treat anyone badly (335b). Polemarchus, based on his account of justice – in which justice is treating friends well and harming enemies (332d) – believes that it is okay to hurt people (335b). Socrates then brings up examples of what happens when a horse, dog, and person are treated poorly (335b-c). In all these cases, Socrates points out that it worsens them. Afterwards, when taking into account that justice is a “human excellence,” (335c) Socrates says that “members of the human race who are treated badly must necessarily become more unjust. Therefore, based on that reasoning, Socrates presents a fundamentally valid argument. In theory, Socrates’s claim that it is not just to treat anyone badly under any circumstances is sound because not one person or creature deserves bad treatment, no matter the past unjust actions or decisions that person/creature has done in the past. However, it is difficult to put it into practice because of emotion. To defend this argument made by Socrates, I will go more in depth about two points that were brought about him: If it really is just

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

It is evident that Thrasymachus was not convinced by Socrates’ argument, notwithstanding his agreement with Socrates’ points. In a nutshell, Thrasymachus does not tell us what justice really is in an explicit form. He rates justice on whom it harms or whom it empowers (i.e.: the rulers, the poor, the good man…).

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.

In Book I, Socrates states that "Injustice... causes civil war, hatred, and fighting among themselves, while justice brings friendship and a

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

Socrates’ argument for why the soul is analogous to the city begins with an observation--that the city is comprised of individuals. The city is therefore a reflection of the characteristics of the individual. This observation allows Socrates to derive the characteristics of an individual from the characteristics of the city that had previously been discussed and established. However, this task is more difficult than it seems at first because of the differences between the soul and 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.

Firstly, we must understand why justice is so important for this argument to hold any weight. Justice is something that has been talked about in many philosophical discussions but the first in depth conversation is from Plato’s Republic. In book one three different definitions are analyzed. The first is where you speak truthly and give back what you take from others, secondly Thrasymachus’s definition is that justice is to the advantage of the stronger. The definition that ends their conversation is that justice is better than being preyed on by others although not as good as always taking advantage of people. The reason why this conversation is discussed so in depth is because justice is seen as a virtue by Plato. This is on an individual level and a governmental level, as Thrasymachus discusses it. Plato believes that “justice in the city is the same thing as justice in the individual”. Given that information it’s obvious that justice is an overarching theme of the developing of the perfect republic in the book. Its viewed by Plato that justice is a “master virtue in its own sense” because if you and your city are just than everything else will be working together too. This is an elevated way of viewing justice and since its spoken about so much in the book it’s very important to hear Thrasymachus’s opposing argument to it.

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.

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.

Dr. Malters’s comments: This student does two things quite remarkable for an undergraduate student. In his compact essay, not only does he display an in-depth understanding of complex perspectives on justice put forth by the protagonist Socrates, he deftly explains how Plato has artfully made rude objections by a seemingly minor character early in the dialogue function as a structuring device for nearly all the important ideas examined thereafter.

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?”

Justice is useful to the individual and to the state. Justice is useful when they are useless and useless when it is useful. Polemarchus asked Socrates about him, Homer and Simonides agreeing on justice as an art and can be practiced to help good people and to harm enemies. Socrates doesn’t agree with that and he still doesn’t give us a good answer of what justice is and how to define it. It’s clear that Socrates is not giving answer of what it is he’s just saying what’s wrong but not right answer. In the text Socrates states, “Let me first understand you, I replied. Justice, as you say, is the interest of the stronger. What, Thrasymachus, is the meaning of this? You cannot mean to say that because Polydamas, the pancratiast, is stronger than we are, and finds the eating of beef conducive to his bodily strength, that to eat beef is therefore equally for our good who are weaker than he is, and right and just for us?.’(Jowett, page 12) Leading on, Socrates didn’t mean the word stronger as someone who is actually physically strong he meant deep within, someone who is strong minded. Justice is the compliance which subject provides to their commands, the weaker are commanded to do, not what is for the interest but what is for the injury of the stronger.

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?