Thrasymachus

Socrates and Thrasymachus: What is Justice? “What is justice?” This is the common refrain throughout Plato’s Republic. As a work of philosophy, Republic attempts to answer this question by posing thought provoking conversations between Socrates and the characters he meets in his travels. These characters serve as foils and counterpoints to Socrates and his own interpretation of justice. Perhaps the most interesting counterpoint to Socrates comes in the conversation with Thrasymachus, a skeptical

Platos Notion of Justice vs. Thrasymachus, Why Be Moral? By: Khonstance Milan Plato has a different sense of justice than what we ourselves would consider to be justice. Justice starts in the heart and goes outward. Justice is about being a person of good intent towards all people, doing what is believed to be right or moral. Plato believes that once a person has a true understanding of justice that they will want to be “just” for its own benefit regardless of good or bad consequence. Though

conventional morality, while Thrasymachus rejects this belief and refutes that human behavior is and should be guided by self-interest. The dialogue begins hastily with an unsympathetic Thrasymachus offensive and in poor treatment of Socrates. After a brief argument with Socrates Thrasymachus starts by saying that Right is the ‘Interest of the stronger’ and that just behavior works to the advantage of other people, not to the person who behaves justly. After Thrasymachus’ beginning proposal he steps

However great the divide in opinion may be, there must exist at least some similarity in the participants’ manner of viewing the issue if a solution is ever to be reached. Book One of Plato’s Republic features a disagreement 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

Thrasymachus defines justice as the advantage of the stronger; what he means is that injustice always involves acting so as to benefit whoever is in power. His evidence for this is that things that benefit the majority are called “just” in a democracy, while things that benefit the elite are called “just” in an aristocracy. His claim is easily misunderstood. Since he thinks that the ruled act justly whenever they benefit the rulers, one might suppose that he will also think that the rulers are acting

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

from external punishment. If you were just you would not take the ring. However, Thrasymachus points out that in today’s society many people would take the ring. This reveals that many people within our society if they could choose, would choose to be unjust. Aside from that, within his definition he claims there is no natural law. This means that there are not certain rights inherent by virtue of human nature. Thrasymachus addresses that advantages always consist in external goods, which involve money

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

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

can have many definitions as for Thrasymachus, he believed justice was something that favors only the stronger party. He argues his view of Justice in book one by mentioning the ruling class and how they make laws that only favors them. Glaucon and Adeimantus developed his argument in book two by saying that justice is something that people do because it is required and if people have the chance to be unjust without any reprimand they will do so. I believe Thrasymachus has been proven correct at this