Preview

Thrasymachus’ Views on Justice

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
935 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Thrasymachus’ Views on Justice
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. These claims include his opinion that “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,” “it is just to obey the rulers,” and “justice is really the good of another […] and harmful to the one who obeys and serves.” Socrates continuously challenges these claims using what is now known as the “Socratic method” of questioning, while Thrasymachus works to defend his views. This paper seeks to argue the implausibility of Thrasymachus’ views through an analysis of his main claims regarding justice, as well as his view that injustice brings greater happiness.

In Book I of Republic, Socrates attempts to define justice with the help of his friends and acquaintances. After a number of suggestions prove false or insufficient, Thrasymachus tries his hand to define the term, convinced that his definition rings true. Thrasymachus begins in stating, “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,1” and after prodding, explains what he means by this. Thrasymachus believes that the stronger rule society, therefore, creating laws and defining to the many what should be considered just. He pertains, however, that the stronger create said laws for their own benefit and therefore in acting justly, the ruled are performing for the rulers benefit and not their own. This argument is not feasible for a variety of reasons. One of the key characteristics of justice is fairness, which can also be defined as being reasonable or impartial.5 Impartiality means that you



Cited: Encarta World English Dictionary. 2004 Plato. The Republic. Translated by G.M.A. Grube. Revised by C.D.C. Reeve. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company. 1992. 382c

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    In his philosophy, Plato places a large emphasis on the importance of the idea of justice. This emphasis can be seen especially in his work ‘The Republic’ where, through his main character Socrates, he attempts to define the nature of justice and to justify this definition. One of the methods used by Socrates to strengthen or rather explain his argument on justice is through his famous city-soul analogy, where a comparison between a just city and a just soul/individual is made. Through this analogy, Socrates attempts to explain the nature of justice, how it is the virtue of the soul and is therefore intrinsically valuable to the individual, but it becomes apparent in the analysis and evaluation of the analogy that there may have been several purposes behind it. Inconsistencies within the analogy itself also raise questions to the validity in Plato’s definition and justification of justice.…

    • 1949 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Machiavelli’s Prince virtu is defined as a man that is characterized by strength, courage, skill, decisiveness, ability, and the ability to do whatever is necessary for the greater good of the state. On the other hand, in Plato’s Republic Thrasymachus believed that justice was best defined as that which is done to benefit the stronger, meaning that in a democracy democratic laws are just and in tyranny, tyrannical laws are just, and this applies to all other forms of government.…

    • 267 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Plato offers two main analogies to examine the definition of justice. The division of parts in the soul as well as the parts of the state. Both of the parts have some similar things. Plato claims that the justice is the same in the soul and in the state. In the analogy of the state Plato supports the definition of justice as “doing one’s own work”. It becomes obvious that in order for justice to remain in the state each person has to do his own work and not meddle with others.…

    • 685 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    What is justice is a question that has plagued philosophers since the time of Plato when he wrote The Republic to present day. In the book, Plato uses the dialectic, between Socrates and other Athenians like Polemarchus, Cephalus, and Glacuon, to try and find the definition of justice. Through the voice of Glaucon, Plato defines justice as a compromise of sorts between advantage and fear, and injustice as the things that we wouldn’t…

    • 962 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Socrates meets with some of his friends and begins discussing the meaning of justice and whether the just life is better than the unjust life. First, they contemplate the meaning of justice. Cephalus stated that justice is as simple as telling the truth and returning what you receive, Polemarchus stated that justice is giving each his due, and Thrasymachus stated that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates proves each of them wrong and embarks on a discussion to find out what true justice is, and to find out whether the just man is truly happier than the unjust man, or vice versa.…

    • 627 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    What is justice? Today, where it is common for people to only look out for themselves, justice is an extremely important tool. But what exactly is justice? What is right, what is wrong, and who decides that? To find an accurate definition, we as a society should not just focus on one opinion, but the views of many. Similar to how our society is today, the society in The Republic, lived the same, struggling to determine what the correct definition of justice was, and how to pursue the right answer. In the paper, I will be discussing all aspects of Plato’s Republic, including the Philosopher King and his nature, and justice in that time.…

    • 114 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    He must do this regardless of the opinion of the majority or possible consequences for himself; he must act only in accordance to the opinion of the few wise, knowledgeable men who understand what is justice, and the laws of the State. Unfortunately, in all of the dialogues the author of this essay has read5, Socrates never clearly explains what ‘the laws’ really are — they remain a sort of abstraction, a divine essence of justice. However, this does not invalidate our definition of a champion of…

    • 698 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Tharasymachus' has been listening to the discussion and has been eagerly waiting to interupt, he is convinced that he alone has the answer of what justice is. He states that justice "is in the interest of the stronger party" and its a virtue only intended for the weaker members of a society. According to Thrasymachus, the just man leads a good life because he is fearful of the repercussions of his actions and the unjust man is not fearful of these repercussions because he is stronger and more intelligent than the average citizen. These traits will allow him to avoid social comeback for his unjust actions. Furthermore, the more unjust a man is the stronger he becomes. Thrasymachus finally states that since the unjust man is living outside the law, he will lead a happier and more fruitful life because he is free from the social constraints of society.…

    • 397 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Socrates Is Not Guilty

    • 1916 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Before Glaucon told the story, Socrates was discussing the problem with Thrasymachus. Which Thyrasymachus held an opinion of justice is advantageous for the stronger. He gave an example of the rulers that “each rulers declares that what is just for its subjects is what is advantageous for itself- the ruler- and it punishes anyone who deviates from this as lawless and unjust”(Public338e). After he stated his view, Socrates asked him if just is subjects must obey whatever laws the rulers make, and what if rulers made mistakes? And they order their subjects to do things that are disadvantageous to them. So in another words, in Thrasymachus opinion, “what is advantageous for the stronger is no more just than what is not advantageous”(Public340b). While everyone was questioning Thrasymachus, he…

    • 1916 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    The bottom line of Thrasymarchus’ argument is that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates agrees that being just is advantageous. He continues to persuade Thrasymarchus, however, that justice is not only advantageous for the stronger, but for everyone. Glaucon refuses to accept Thrasymarchus’ capitulation to Socrates’ arguments. Glaucon’s view is that Socrates has only highlighted the positive consequences of being just and not the intrinsic value of justice itself. By Socrates’ logic, Glaucon argues, the only value of being just is the good reputation and rewards it leads to. If this were the case, people would soon realize that they should not want to be just, but to be believed to be just, Glaucon argues. What is justice, really, without reputation?…

    • 997 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thrasymachus once said, “It doesn’t pay to be just”. Ever since the ancient Greek times people have been in search for the perfect meaning of justice. Some have come up with a good definition but even then, there still remains a point to argue proving that the definition incorrect. In Plato’s Republic he starts off with book one, a discussion on what justice is through Socrates. Throughout book one, Socrates argues with Cephalus, Polemarcus and Thrasymachus on why their definition of justice is incorrect. Through the arguments he provides examples as to why people might disagree with the definition. Through the conversation Socrates has with the men Plato proves a connection to his book seven the allegory of the cave. The allegory of the cave is based on how people on only so educated on the area around them because that’s what they grew into. While Dr. Tom Brickhouse, provided a lecture on how to understand Plato’s Republic. Even today people still argue on the true meaning of justice but ones understanding of justice can be is only so because you only know what you have seen and heard.…

    • 437 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In this paragraph Glaucon, who has taken up the argument from Thrasymachus, makes his definition of justice. He states that justice is a compromise of sorts between advantage and fear. People understand that being unjust is often to their advantage; however, they also fear being the victim of injustice. If they could act unjustly without suffering the consequences they would. This partially explains Thrasymachus? earlier definition of justice as the advantage of the strong. No reason exists for a person who can act unjustly to their own benefit without being the subject of injustice themselves not to. Justice is therefore a reciprocal agreement between peoples too weak to be immune from injustice not to be unjust and is a contract not willingly entered. Glaucon presents this definition as a culmination of previous argument and as an explanation he feels will be suitable to Socrates.…

    • 276 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Socrates vs Thrasymachus

    • 1668 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Thrasymachus’ first definition of justice is easy to state, but it is not so immediately clear how it is to be interpreted. Justice, he claims, is the advantage of the stronger. On its own, such a sentence could imply that what is beneficial to the stronger is just for and therefore, beneficial to the weaker, and Socrates accordingly asks whether this understanding is accurate. Thrasymachus promptly responds in the negative. The interpretation he proceeds to expound upon can be summed up by adapting slightly his original definition: justice is that which obtains the advantage of the stronger. To support this definition, he points to the example of ruling a city. Any ruling…

    • 1668 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The discussion between Socrates and Glaucon in the story of the ring of Gyges is a response to a sophist named Thrasymachus’ idea of Justice in book one of The Republic. He made three central claims about justice: Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger. Justice is obedience to laws. Justice is nothing but the advantage of another. Thrasymachus’ “won” this argument against Socrates; however, Glaucon was not satisfied with these claims.…

    • 470 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics