In the Republic, Thrasymachus has rather compelling definition of justice. He says that it is “...nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.” From this definition Thrasymachus constructs a corollary: the stronger use injustice so injustice itself is more powerful than justice. Is justice simply whatever the current rulers decide it should be, whether in a democratic, tyrannical or oligarchical system? Or is there something more to it, as Socrates argues? One of the potentially faulty arguments Socrates uses to ponder Thrasymachus’ definition of justice involves considering injustice within a single person.
Socrates allows Thrasymachus to entertain his ideas in a public setting, but questions his position on the fallibility and infallibility of rulers. Thrasymachus is in favor of the strong ruling as opposed to the weak, while Socrates believes that those with the proper knowledge and capabilities should rule over the general population. Through asking the correct questions, Socrates was able to deconstruct the argument that Thrasymachus believed was untouchable. Thrasymachus could have answered Socrates in a more successful way by putting more thought into his answers, and by treating Socrates with more respect. Due to Thrasymachus’ incapability of completing the aforementioned, Socrates has the stronger argument because he demonstrates that
Polemarchus responds by saying, “that the men one believe to be good, one loves, while those he considers bad one hates.” This is the problem with Polemarchus’ view of justice. He could easily be wrong about who is “good” and who is “bad” and you will end up treating someone who has done nothing wrong unjustly. Dividing a country into classes where each person must be loyal to ones own class would never lead to true justice because the different classes would only be loyal to their particular class. The ruling class would benefit more from this because they are in fact the higher
Thrasymachus continues to claim his position but in a modified form of his first argument, after Socrates commented. Being unjust, Thrasymachus thinks, is better than being just because it 's stronger and leads to a more happy life. As before he, he only takes into consideration only the advantages or disadvantages of being just, and he doesn 't discuss what 's justice or how it plays a role in people. Essentially, this definition is an extreme extension of the previous one. The example he gives that a tyrant gets happy through being unjust and controlling draws us back to his first argument saying that ‘ruling being the advantage of the stronger '.
He comprehended that all the theories proposed by Thrasymachus, Socrates and other has one common component. The common component was that all these considered justice as an external force that was kind of an achievement that needs to be carried out for the survival in the habitat. According to him, it is not a relationship of a superior and inferior, whereby an inferior follows or complies by the laws set by the superior, not does justice is born out of fear. Rather the person performs such duty as the nature has casted over him for a specific purpose. He states that justice is done when a human being wishes to do a duty, without under any fear.
Intro: (Thesis) Thrasymachus believes justice is having an advantage over another because of strength. Socrates soon brings out the fallacies in this argument by mentioning how rulers help their subjects, improve the art they specialize in, and how they should be reimbursed for the service they provide. Socrates successfully refutes Thrasymachus’ theory by bringing up these fallacies and showing that justice is not just the stronger surviving, there is a genuine good in people that prevents this theory from taking hold. Main Argument: Thrasymachus’ theory is that justice is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger. He provides an example of how different cities are governed by various forms of government like democracies, aristocracies,
JUSTICE IN NICOMACHEAN ETHICS: Aristotle observed in book V of the nicomachean ethics that the word justice is has a double meaning as: “Justice can mean either lawfulness or fairness, since injustice is lawlessness and unfairness. The laws encourage people to behave virtuously, so the just person, who by definition is lawful, will necessarily be virtuous. Virtue differs from justice because it deals with one’s moral state, while justice deals with one’s relations with others. Universal justice is that state of a person who is generally lawful and fair. Particular justice deals with the “divisible” goods of honor, money, and safety, where one person’s gain of such goods results in a corresponding loss by someone else.” TYPES OF JUSTICE: Following are the three main types of justice in accordance with Aristotle: Distributive justice (This deals with the distribution of burden) Compensatory justice (This deals in the matter of compensating persons for wrong doing) Retributive justice (This involves the
Eusebius argues that because God is divine and perfect and holly, and because He (God) created humans in His own image, humans ought to emulate God and His order (WH: 358, 11). Consequently, monarchy and its one ruler system trumps all other government systems, simply due to the fact that monarchy reflects God’s natural structure. Eusebius applauded Constantine and his monarchy because, “he [Constantine] directs his gaze above, and frames his earthly government
And to Socrates argument, with an ideal king will come forms of co-operated citizens of a city. In Book IV of Plato’s Republic, Socrates and his peers come to the conclusion that a city is going to need people who have an understanding of what justice should be. Socrates at the end of Book IV can make the difference between individual, political, and social justice. He knows that individual and political justice is so much in common because they both weigh in heavy on truth, honor, and appetitive soul. That appetitive soul is an element that helps the secure the just community with love and support.
In Book 1 of Plato 's Republic, Socrates and Thrasymachus engage in a passionate, and often acrimonious, conversation regarding the relationship between a ruler and those he or she rules. Their conversation raises substantive questions about both the nature and purpose of government and the motivations and roles of those who govern. The following will address these questions by 1) explaining both Socrates ' and Thrasymachus ' understandings of the ruler-ruled relationship and 2) addressing the merits of each argument and offering my own philosophical position on the matter. First, with respect to Thrasymachus ' position, he believes that rulers craft laws for their "own advantage," and he considers justice to be the "advantage of the stronger"