Thrasymachus

In Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus asserts that justice is the interest of the ruling part in a political community. This is proven wrong in many ways in Book II. Socrates disassembles this theory using undisputed definitions of wisdom and virtue. These definitions of wisdom and virtue are rendered by a ruler’s personal biases. A ruler has a natural internal motivation to gain undisputed expertise of their craft. A ruler of a political community does act through personal motivations, but by doing

conversation between Socrates and Thrasymachus on aspects of justice and injustice. While Thrasymachus believes injustice has merit in societal functions; injustice is “more profitable” and “good counsel” as opposed to “high-minded innocence” (Plato 348c-348d), Socrates endorses the antithesis, concluding, “The just man has revealed himself to us as good and wise, and the unjust man unlearned and bad" (Plato 350c). To prove his point, Socrates challenges Thrasymachus with a series of warrant-based assertions

man is harmed the man deteriorates from what it is to be a good man (335c). Therefore, a just man would be unable to be unjust to any human, as it would be unjust regardless. Therefore, it is only an unjust man that could be unjust (335e). Next, Thrasymachus attempts to define what justice is (after receiving his fee) (336d). He defines justice as whatever is in the interest of the stronger party (338c). Each government, whether it's

At the beginning of the debate on what “justice” is; Thrasymachus shoves himself into the dialogue to say that justice “is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (Plato 14 [I]). In the state, a ruler is considered the stronger, therefore what is advantageous to them is just. The laws made to be beneficial to the ruler are just, so it is just for their subjects to follow these rules and if they disobey it is considered unjust. This can be said since we can assume that the ruler is the strongest

on how the laws are followed. To their understanding both Socrates and Thrasymachus argue on what justice is and how it is important in life. In the Republic of Plato Book I , Socrates states that there is a difficult understanding from the idea of harming those through justice. As a result, Thrasymachus also known to be a philosopher , argues that he has a much detailed explanation to what justice is. Thrasymachus definition of justice, is said that there is no value to being justly,

the concept of justice has been a crucial factor in determining governments and the structure of society. There are, however, differing conceptions of what justice means and the importance of it. Two of the western world’s most famous thinkers, Thrasymachus and Hobbes, as represented in the writings of The Republic, by Plato and Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes have wrestled with the concept and come up with disparate ideas. First, by analyzing Thrasymachus’s view of justice, we can then understand how

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 of justice in a very self-interested form. Thrasymachus believes that justice

Socrates first reminds Thrasymachus that rulers are not infallible and can make mistakes. As Augustine once said “fallor ergo sum” (I err therefore I am). Socrates argues that rulers may inadvertently order their own subjects to do what is bad for themselves. Consequently the subjects must be just in obeying the rulers’ orders even though it could present to be disadvantageous to the ruler. Thrasymachus is bothered accusing Socrates of taking his words out of context and offers a counter argument

In Plato’s The Republic, Thrasymachus asserts that justice is defined by the most powerful in a society, with the purpose of benefiting themselves. He further establishes the concept of moral skepticism as a result of his views on justice. While his claims may have some merit, on the whole they are largely unconvincing. Thrasymachus claims when a person acts justly, the person is not benefiting themselves, but others, the most powerful of a society.(343 c) Thrasymachus contends that justice is

Friedrich Nietzsche and Thrasymachus both depict their account of justice and morality. On the Genealogy of morals and The Republic of Plato share similarities but express different views on the genesis of justice and morality. The first account on the genesis of justice and morality, Thrasymachus expresses that justice and morality are naturally beneficial to the ruling class. In a similar manner, Nietzsche states that the genesis of justice and morality is created by the people in power, and the