Analysis Of Thrasymachus's Three Notions Of Justice

Improved Essays
the things of which they are they crafts. (342d). Furthermore, no one in any position of rule, as long as they are a ruler, seeks or orders what is advantageous to themselves. However, they seek what is advantageous to his subjects, the one of whom they are the craftsman. (342e). As a result of this formulation, Thrasymachus becomes visible upset because it has become evident that his account of justice had turned into its opposite. (343a).
During his frustration for Socrates, Thrasymachus gives his third notion of justice, that justice is really the good of another, the advantage of the stronger and the ruler, and harmful to the one who obeys and serves. Additionally, he states injustice is the opposite, it rules the truly simple and just, and those it rules do what is to the advantage of the other and stronger, and they make the one they serve happy, but not themselves at all. Furthermore, he claims that a just man always gets less than an unjust one. (343d). Thrasymachus gives three scenarios that a just man gets less than an unjust one: first, in their contracts with one another, the unjust man will always get more; second, is regarding the city, specifically when taxes are to be paid, a just man pays more on the same property, an unjust one pays less, however, when the city is giving out refunds, a just man gets nothing, while an unjust one makes a profit; finally, when each of them holds a ruling position in some public office, a just person, even if he is not penalized in other ways, finds that his private affairs deteriorate because he has to neglect them, that he gains no advantage from the public purse because of his justice, and he is hated by his relatives and acquaintances when he is unwilling to do them an unjust favor. (343d-344a). On the other hand, Thrasymachus believes the opposite is true of an unjust man in every respect. Thrasymachus repeats his aforementioned point: a person of great power outdoes everyone else. Additionally, he states that one should consider the stronger if they want to figure out how much more advantageous it is for the individual to be just rather than unjust. As a result, a person will understand this most easily if they turn their thoughts to the most complete injustice, the one that makes the doer of injustice happiest and the suffers of it, who are unwilling to do injustice, the most wretched. Thrasymachus posits that this most complete injustice is tyranny. Additionally,
…show more content…
Socrates spends the rest of the republic responding to Thrasymachus challenge. The challenge may possibly not be compatible with itself, specifically, the third point seems incompatible with the first two. Nevertheless, Socrates takes this challenge seriously. Additionally, it does not seem that Plato would take this challenge seriously if he believed that the three notions were inconsistent. Therefore, it should be understood that the three notions are compatible with each other: the first two are in reference to the ruler; the third is in reference to the actions of the ruled benefitting the rulers. However, one could posit that Thrasymachus third point is inconsistent with the first two, as was aforementioned because one could suppose that the ruler and/or stronger should do what is advantageous for

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    After Socrates, the protagonist in Plato’s Republic, refutes a description of justice similar to the traditional poetic view of justice made by a man named Cephalus, Thrasymachus, a well-known sophist, enters into the discussion of justice with Socrates. Thrasymachus asserts, “I proclaim that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger” (Plato, Republic I, 338 C). For Thrasymachus, justice is only revealed through the interests of the stronger party. Whatever the stronger party dictates as being good for itself, the stronger party, is what justice is. To further elaborate on his claim, Thrasymachus uses examples of cities governed by different ruling bodies.…

    • 1179 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Justice has been an evolutionary concept that has been forever evolving for thousands of years. However, in order for the modern deduction of justice to have been made by modern standards, the concept of justice itself needs to be established. Although its formal understanding may have been unclear during their time period, Hesiod and Homer both attempt to understand and exert their opinions as to what justice is through their epic poems and other works. Even though some of their views on justice conflict and others compliment each other, they both laid a foundation to explain what justice meant in Greek society.…

    • 777 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Glaucon Vs Socrates

    • 1273 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Imagine a man that always donate clothes and feeds the homeless. This man regularly visits children with terminal illnesses and is one of the largest donors to Susan G. Komen for the Cure non-profit organization. He is viewed by tens of thousands as a saint, heaven sent or a reincarnation of Jesus himself. A just man in the eyes of many, but this man has twisted dark secrets; which involve human trafficking, murder of any competitor and extortion of politicians. The man is an unjust person by nature but is viewed as just.…

    • 1273 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Decent Essays

    thrasymachus uses the example of a tyrant by showing how they make laws in their best interest and the weak must be obedient to all of the laws or they will be punished. Thrasymachus goes on to explain that most people are good in appearance because they are afraid of the punishment. The more intelligent and strong will disobey the laws and have the courage to wrong others causing the weak to suffer. Believing that the unjust life is better, Thrasymachus says the unjust man can easily benefit himself by not paying his taxes and steal from the weak. Thrasymachus claims that of one steals it will be big to aid himself.…

    • 130 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Socrates and Thrasymachus’ Conception on Justice In Friedrich Nietzsche’s work, The Genealogy of Morality, he states that the existence of laws establishes what is just and unjust within a given society (Nietzsche 1280; sec 12). Thus, there does not seem to be anything explicitly virtuous for justice. In reference to the Republic, I will argue Socrates and Thrasymachus have different views on justice and will ultimately disagree with each other on Nietzsche 's conception of justice. Nietzsche’s entire work is trying to dissect morality from its origins.…

    • 1228 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    According to Thrasymachus ‘Justice is the advantage of the stronger’. What does he mean by this and does Socrates succeed in proving him wrong? The name Thrasymachus means fierce fighter, and this certainly represents the character of the same name, who appears in book one of Plato’s Republic. Thrasymachus enters Plato’s world with a statement designed to shock, stating that “justice is the advantage of the stronger”.…

    • 2199 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The Definition Of Justice In Plato's Republic

    • 954 Words
    • 4 Pages
    • 1 Works Cited

    A ruler is self-controlled if one’s reason is in charge and the other two parts of the mind do not interfere with the reason. The same is for the state. The rulers rule the state, the soldiers protect the state, and the craftsmen perform their individual trade. The classes should carry out their specific duties and not interfere with one another. To make sure that the classes will act upon their own tasks, Socrates also included this in the noble lie.…

    • 954 Words
    • 4 Pages
    • 1 Works Cited
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Glaucon is unsatisfied with the argument between Thrasymachus and Socrates regarding Justice. Thrasymachus believes Justice is for the common good, it is not for the good for an individual, that any compromise is involved. Glaucon renews Thrasymachus’ argument, he divides the good into three classes: things good in themselves, things good both in themselves and for their consequences, and things good only for their consequences. Socrates places justice in the class of things good in themselves and for their consequences without any hesitation. Glaucon wants Socrates to prove by exploring that Justice is best, not a compromise.…

    • 713 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    These analogies relate justice to professions and animals in an attempt to refine the definition Socrates seeks. Socrates ultimately comes to the conclusion that justice cannot be “to give each what is owed to him.” Socrates and Polemarchus both agree that because it is never just to hurt another man, to give each man--be he good or bad--what he “owes” is fundamentally unjust. The philosopher is closer to a definition of justice because he can reject Polemarchus’ assertion as a potential answer to the query “what is justice?” However, I take issue with Socrates’ theory of justice as a craft, and further, the idea that hurting another is never just on account of Socrates’ weak analogies and vague…

    • 1807 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He means anything that a ruler thinks is good is justice. Rulers proceed ruling power to control and make laws for their cities; hence, what rulers think is just for people under their authority is justice. Therefore, if a person disobey any law he receives punishment for acting unjustly. Then Socrates shows humans are fallible, liable to make mistakes, and so are the rulers. Thrasymachus claims that a ruler to the extent he is a ruler does not make mistakes, so the ruler decides what is good for him and the subjects should carry out his order.…

    • 835 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Plato also gives his own idea of justice, which individually, is a human virtue that makes a person…

    • 998 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Every character in Aeschylus's Oresteia is concerned with the notion of justice. The trilogy repeatedly emphasizes a fundamental concept of justice: revenge. It is a really simple but powerfully emotional basis for justice, associating retribution with family, emotions and honor. The Oresteia explores whether the revenge ethic is adequate as a legitimate basis for justice. It depicts the flaws of the practice of personal vendetta: the cyclical nature of blood crimes and the lack of a clear distinction between right and wrong when one is personally involved and caught up in the details.…

    • 2715 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Their claiming that ruling and lawmaking is a craft is false because it only affects those in the tangible world if people choose to acknowledge it. Socrates also emphasizes the differences later on with the separate grouping of guardians and producers. If the philosopher kings could be compared to the craftsmen, then the virtues of the groups would also shift. The guardians, with an assumed craft of lawmaking, would be more affected by…

    • 447 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In Plato’s Republic, the images of justice are perceived differently between several characters in this novel. Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, all present contrasting ideals of justice compared to the one envisioned by Socrates. Using the art of rhetoric, Socrates utilizes argumentation to identify the faults in each individual’s vision of justice, and how his unconventional perception of justices can change their entire society. The first vision of justice discussed in The Republic was Cephalus. Cephalus describes justice as honesty.…

    • 1361 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The opposing view of justice in the podcast and Plato’s Republic is given by Thrasymachus, who claimed justice belonged to those with power as they have the strength to break the rules, exploiting the weaker. Breaking the law is more just than…

    • 1929 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays