Plato's Response to Thrasymachus' Immoralist View of Justice In Book 1 of the ‘Republic’, Socrates, in answer to the question ‘What is Justice?’ is presented with a real and dangerous alternative to what he thinks to be the truth about Justice. Julia Annas believes Thrasymachus thinks Justice and Injustice do have a real existence that is independent of human institutions; and that Thrasymachus makes a decided commitment to Injustice. She calls this view ‘Immoralism’: “the immoralist holds
between Socrates and Thrasymachus about the nature of justice. The disaccord between their views of the subject is extremely pronounced, but there are certain underlying agreements which guide the course of the debate. One way to evaluate the validity of the arguments involved is to examine whether the assumptions at the root of the argument are in accord with this common ground. By my reading of the dialogue, Socrates’ reply to the first part of Thrasymachus’ definition of justice rests safely upon
this does not portray an accurate description of what justice is. The rest of the first book is a discussion of the definition of justice, mainly that of Thrasymachus' definition. Socrates takes his normal role as an interrogator of peoples' views. The conversation focuses on justice but actually must be viewed in the context of how each individual can lead the best life possible. Thrasymachus states that "justice is simply the interest of the stronger" (338 c)
In Plato’s The Republic, Socrates tries to explain the value of justice to man. Other educated Athenians challenge him, however Socrates pokes holes in all of their statements. Socrates argues that there are many problems with their views on social philosophy, especially when it comes to Thrasymachus’ idea of ethical egoism. Plato delivers his view of justice through Socrates when he responds to Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Cephalus on the issue. Throughout the discussion, Plato never argues against
Justice “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
Justice is a philosophical concept of relevance or truth in ethics. Although justice is arguably fundamental to any ethical system, the definition of “justice” and what is “just” is widely disputed among philosophers and thinkers. Various conceptions of justice place it in dependence of a legal system, equality or fairness, religious teachings or human rationality. What is just, what is to be done, and the response to actions that go against what is just is the only concern with justice (Black
The Importance of Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic 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
define justice. Furthermore, he aimed to define justice in such a way as to show that it is good for its own sake, in and of itself. In The Republic, Plato speaks through Socrates in an attempt to prove this claim. In Book I, he focuses specifically on a couple of questions: What is justice? Why is justice important? Book I of The Republic puts Socrates discussing justice within a group of companions. Their conversation begins by discussing and arguing the various definitions of justice and
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 debate between Thrasymachus and Socrates begins when Thrasymachus gives his definition
mainly focuses on defining justice to the simplest form by asking Thrasymachus. Plato uses many forms to discover the ideal society, or republic, which is inspired through an early philosopher such as Socrates. Plato was inspired by Socrates and how his interactions with people were in a sense of questioning principals, guidelines, and rules of society. Now Socrates primarily has made the interaction of discussing what many topics with Thrasymachus such as the most common justice. Also its pin points