Thrasymachus Vs Socrates

Socrates and Thrasymachus varied greatly in their theories on the objectivity of justice. I will argue that there are objective truths about what is just and what is unjust. In the first paragraph, I will elaborate on the difference between a subjective and objective truth . In the second paragraph, I will contrast the views of Thrasymachus and Socrates on the objectivity of justice. Finally, in the third paragraph and following, I will develop and support an argument for the presence of objective truths in the sense of justice.

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

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

The second definition of justice, obedience to the interest of the stronger, is Thrasymachus' veiled justification for tyranny (might is right), and is foreshadowed in his indecorous demand for payment. He is portrayed in sharp contrast to Socrates, who suggests that the stronger may not always know his own interest; therefore, at times, it is necessary for the weaker to disobey him. Socrates then successfully upsets the definition by demonstrating that, insofar as his role is an art, a ruler acts in the best interest of his subjects, as exemplified by the physician for his patients and the captain for his crew.

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.

In Book II of Plato’s Republic, Glaucon and Adeimantus present a challenge to Socrates’ view of justice. Previously, in Book I of the Republic, Socrates presents several counterarguments to Thrasymachus’ belief that it is to your own advantage to practice injustice rather than to follow laws, if you can get away with it (Babcock). Glaucon and Adeimantus sought to present a stronger defense to Thrasymachus’ view. The main viewpoint they try to establish is that it is to our advantage to practice injustice rather than justice and that the good life is the life of injustice (Babcock). Several arguments are used to reinforce the central view through use of the Ring of Gyges story, an account of the origin of justice, a classification of

In the following paper I am going to defend my personal position on whether or not justice is objective. I am going to explain the argument between Socrates and Thrasymachus and define the terms used. Next I will give supporting evidence to support my position. I agree with Socrates, which is that justice is an objective truth.

In sections (352d-354b) of the book, “The Republic of Plato” by Allan Bloom, Socrates begins by arguing with Thrasymachus that the just life is the happiest and best (352e). He provides rhetorical appeal of logos and compelling arguments that all living things have a function. Socrates establishes a well-rounded statement to counter argue against Thrasymachus by including multiple statements on how the just life has virtue, while as unjust brings the opposite of happiness. He pieces together to puzzle that blocks Thrasymachus from understanding the correct rationality for the attributes that we possess.

For years, philosophers have tried to define justice. In Plato’s The Republic, Plato discusses the equality of the sexes, abolition of family, rule by philosophers, life and while doing so, attempts to describe what justice is. In Book I, the search for the answer to what is just is set up through discussion done mostly by Socrates, Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus contributes to this conversation by establishing what he thinks justice means, especially in regards to government and law. Thrasymachus argues that justice is “the advantage of the stronger” (Plato 338c). Through discussion with Socrates, who opposes this view, Thrasymachus offers his definition and explanation of the argument. I believe that though Thrasymachus’s

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 begins to define individual justice, to start, Socrates introduces “parts” of the soul. His argument consists of three parts of the soul, the appetite, reason and spirit. The first part of the soul, the appetite aspect consists of food, sex, drinks and money. The second part of the soul, reason, is the idea of resisting the urge of greed, in other words, the complete opposite of the first part of the soul. Finally, the third part is the spirit, where it involves the process of earning honour from actions that an individual does. Upon from proving that the soul has three parts to it, Socrates demonstrates that an individual who has the right arrangement of parts in his/her soul will behave as expected from the norms of justice.

Socrates argues about the complex question about whether it is better to suffer injustice or to do injustice. This means for example, to kill, or to be killed. Suffering injustice is essentially being the victim of a crime; while doing injustice puts you in the position of a perpetrator. There are differences in answering the question one way or another: one receiving the injustice and one dispensing it. In our world today, there are an immense amount of tragedies. Ranging from school shootings, to terrorist bombings.

‘Socrates describes Thrasymachus with images of wildness and vulgarity (336b, d; 344d)’ (N. Pappas, 1995). This discourteous and offensive image of Thrasymachus is useful when studying the context of his theory of justice, because his theory of justice is just as pessimistic and despondent (Guthrie, 1969). Thrasymachus begins by describing justice as ‘nothing other than the advantage of the stronger’ (Plato, 338c). From this, it is interpreted that he defines justice as a fake system whose agenda is controlled by the rich and powerful and use it to exploit the poor and vulnerable (Cleary, Glurtler, 1998). This view can be offensive to certain sections of society but Thrasymachus continues anyhow explaining how justice does not have a set definition and is interpreted by the power structure, in the modern world, this means that justice is decided by the ruling government of the day (Cleary, Glurtler,1998). Santas (2010) argues that in Thrasymachus’ view, by observing the laws of your country, you are considered just and by breaking the laws and facing punishment you are considered unjust. The problem with this system of justice is that the ruling party make laws in their own favour and consequently there are different interpretations of justice across different nations. An example could be censorship in autocratic governments such as North Korea where criticising the government is seen as

Thrasymachus, angry at the discussion between Polemarchus and Socrates, claimed that he gave a better definition of justice. Justice, he says, “is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (book 1, p. 338c). However, Socrates did not clearly understand his idea of justice, Thrasymachus then goes on to explain his statement by asking whether or not Socrates is aware of tyrannical, democratic and aristocratic governments in some cities, he asks: “Don’t you know that some cities are ruled by a tyranny, some by a democracy, and some by an aristocracy?” (book 1, p. 338d), this acts as a leading question for what Thrasymachus later further explain his idea of justice, he explains:

“Justice is the art that gives each man what is good for his soul”. This statement is implies that justice is goodness and doing what’s right. This also implies that being a good person and doing good actions will in turn benefit the people by improving their Lives. Justice is good because it sets a standard of goodness that people in society would have to uphold and follow. Therefore this would lead to an environment of positivity and goodness for individuals. The Mariam-Webster dictionary gives the world one definition that states “Justice is the maintenance and administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of confliction claims”. However According to book one of The Republic by Plato, Justice is conveyed as a very complex topic that cannot be defined by a single definition. The topic of justice is discussed and broken down by Socrates, who asks the question “what is justice?” , he seeks out a definition from the company around him and through different given definitions of Justice, Socrates proves that there is no one definition for justice because there are many contradictions and exceptions that have to be considered in certain situations. In this essay I will discuss how justice relates to goodness and how it can be “the art that gives each man what is good for his soul” by using the Socrates’ discussion on the various definitions of justice from book one in The Republic by Plato.