Thrasymachus Definition Of Justice In Plato's The Republic

Polus believes doing whatever is good for oneself is what matters. He does not understand or really accept this claim that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit injustice because he believes justice is relative. Polus claims that he believes justice depends on the individual person and what is beneficial for oneself. However, Socrates denounces this idea that only good matters this in his scene of brutal murder when Socrates says “and if it seems good to me that one of them must have his head smashed, it shall straightway be smashed” (469d5). Polus denounces this instance, saying it is different.

When it comes to justice, Polemarchus believes that justice is “…helping friends and harming enemies.”. Socrates questions this point of view because according to Polemarchus’ view point, only the people who are close to him and in his circle of friends would be worthy of any kind of Justice. Polemarchus is wrong in this viewpoint because if only the people that you know who are of your similar social status and you interact with on a day to day basis are considered friends, what of those that you do not know? Or what of those who are not of your social status, that you do not interact with? Socrates questions this by asking, “Do you mean by friends those who seem to be good to an individual, or those who are, even if they don't seem to be, and similar with enemies?”.

The passage written by Plato goes in to great detail of how Socrates defends his position and how Glaucon defends his position as well but then leaves the reader to formulate his own opinion. With both Socrates’ position and as well as Glaucons, it is clear to see that Glaucon has the more rational reasoning within the debate of who’s happier, the just or unjust person. In Plato’s writing, The Republic, Glaucon challenge Socrates to describe justice and to give reasoning to why acting justly should be believed to be in anyone's self-interest. Glaucon claims that all goods can be distributed into three classes:

The world we live in is filled with crime, evil, and injustice, but do people have the desire to do bad things knowing that they are bad, or do they do them thinking that they are good? In this essay, I examine Socrates argument, found in Plato’s Meno, that no one knowingly desires bad things. If Socrates were right, it would mean that it is impossible for someone to perform a bad action based on their desire for that bad thing. Instead, all bad desires result from the ignorance of the person performing the action in falsely believing that the action is good. Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad.

Socrates in his dialogue was pushing further with the idea that it is worse to do injustice than to suffer injustice, a clime which was objected by Polus. For Polus says that many people who do injustice are happy, but Socrates insists otherwise. Socrates focuses on Eudaimonia, which means happiness, as the main objective to reach. Thus the people who do injustice like kings and tyrants are unhappy. Socrates then asks Polus which is more shameful doing injustice or suffering it, and Polus replies that doing injustice is more shameful.

All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality" ("Letter"). The first sentence is an appeal to 'higher law'; King claims if a law devalues someone, it is contrary to natural and eternal law, so the law cannot be just. Then, Martin Luther King Jr. argues that because

Socrates does not make sound arguments because although his premises are logical, they sometimes have nothing to do with the original argument. In Plato’s Euthyphro, the Euthyphro dilemma argument states whether the Gods love the pious because it is pious or it is pious because the Gods love it. In order to support this distinction, Socrates’ first premise in supporting this conclusion is the example of being carried. Socrates claims that there is a difference between something that is already in the state of being carried because it is carried or if something is carried because it is in the state of being carried.

Sophists expanded the works of Socrates and Plato about the connection of knowledge and

the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame

Thrasymachus’ View of the Nature of Justice In the Republic by Plato, Thrasymachus argues that justice is what the strongest define it as in order to benefit themselves. Thrasymachus is skeptical of commonly-held views of justice because he believes that a just person receives less and is unhappier than one who is unjust. According to Thrasymachus’ view, people should act unjustly, but have the reputation of one who is just. I agree partly with Thrasymachus’ view of justice because justice is often the way he describes it as “the advantage of the stronger,” but that does not mean that is how it ought to be (338c).

What– according to Gilgamesh, Hammurabi, Plato, Thucydides, Confucius, and the Koran– makes a good society? Thanks to the long lasting scriptures of these ancient thinkers and rulers, today, we are fortunate to be given the knowledge to understand the thoughts of sages; who lived thousands of years before us. Through myths, poetry and legal codes, these wise men express their philosophy on what it takes to create a good society. It is evident in all the texts, a presence of a Supreme Being or “God”, who dictates to the people how to behave, along with its respective consequences.

The second form where Socrates broke down that was not justice, would be in the conversation with Cephalus and now Thrasymachus who is a sophist, discussing if Justice is to benefit ones friends and to harm ones enemies. Socrates gives an example of making a musician to make people unmusical, using a horseman use horsemanship to make someone unhorse manlike and he finishes it by comparing justice using justice to unjust people. This example proves that you can’t make people become unjust. At the end of this, Socrates proves that justice is not to benefit ones friend and harm their enemies.