’s Immoralist View Of Justice? Essay, Research Paper
In Book 1 of the ‘Republic’, Socrates, in answer to the question ‘What is Justice?’ is presented with a real and dangerous alternative to what he thinks to be the truth about Justice. Julia Annas believes Thrasymachus thinks Justice and Injustice do have a real existence that is independent of human institutions; and that Thrasymachus makes a decided commitment to Injustice. She calls this view ‘Immoralism’: “the immoralist holds that there is an important question about justice, to be answered by showing that injustice is better.” This essay identifies this ‘Immoral’ view before understanding if and how Plato can respond to it. How does Plato attempt to refute Thrasymachus’s argument? Is he successful?
Initially Thrasymachus states that Justice is ‘nothing else but the interest of the stronger’. Cross and Woozley identify four possible interpretations; the Naturalistic definition, Nihilistic view, Incidental comment, and the more useful Essential analysis. The ‘Essential Analysis’: “An action is just if and only if it serves the interest of the stronger,” with Thrasymachus stating the disadvantages of Justice and advantages of Injustice. This leads to problems with the stronger man, is it merely the promotion of self-interests? If Justice favours the interests of the stronger, is this simply from the perception of the weak with morality not concerning the stronger? Cross re-formulates Thrasymachus’s view as ‘Justice is the promotion of the ‘strongers’ interest’, therefore both weak and strong can act justly in furthering the strongers interests. However, complication occurs when we understand that Justice is another’s good: “You are not aware that justice or right is really what is good for someone else.” This entails Justice supports the interests of the strong from the weak, but additionally the interest of the subjects from the ruler. Confusion lies in Thrasymachus’s argument; can Plato adequately respond to Thrasymachus?
Inconsistency creeps into Thrasymachus’s argument, a) that Justice is in the interest of the stronger, and b) justice is another’s good, concluding that Justice is confined to the weaker. This view is demolished when Thrasymachus claims that a ruler can be either just or unjust; the inconsistency cannot be resolved. The two possibilities coincide in the weaker person not the stronger. As he favours injustice as the pursuit of one’s own interest, to paraphrase Cross, when Thrasymachus thinks about the just and unjust ruler, it is in terms of another’s good rather than in the interest of the stronger.
Socrates agrees with Thrasymachus: “what is right is an interest.” , but he reveals the inconsistency between obeying the rulers and what promotes the rulers’ interests by introducing a ‘wrong law’. With Thrasymachus’s admission that Rulers are not infallible another dilemma appears. Must a subject disobey a wrong law, thus serving the rulers interest, or obey it and disobey the ruler’s interests? He later states that in the true sense, a ruler that is mistaken is not really a ruler; similarly a mistaken doctor ceases in the true sense to be a doctor. Thus, a ruler/expert can never be wrong about his interests, as when mistaken they cease to be an expert. Hence, Thrasymachus avoids Socrates’s dilemma, leaving no possibility for the subject to act contrary to the ruler’s interests. Plato misses an opportunity to ridicule Thrasymachus’s argument. Not only is Thrasymachus’s ‘mistake’ analogy ridiculous, i.e. a doctor simply becomes a bad doctor; moreover, it implies the subject can decide the rulers interests, and thus only obey the ruler if he thinks it’s in his [rulers] interest. Thus making the subject the stronger and in control. Plato could have used Thrasymachus’s own argument to refute him but instead, as Cross identifies, attacks him on three lines of Socratic attack. Did Plato have an opportunity to adequately respond to Thrasymachus?
Firstly, Socrates uses an analogy of the doctor, showing that a ruler does not govern in his own interest. Socrates states that the art of medicine is not for self-interest but for the patient; he is not a doctor because he makes money but because he helps the sick. From this example, Socrates says, “no science studies or enforces the interest of the controlling party or stronger party, but rather that of the weaker party subjected to it.” Socrates assumes the political ruler practices his art of ruling in the interest of his subjects. Annas criticizes Socrates’s statements, saying that to believe skills are practiced solely for the benefit of others is “absurdly optimistic.” She also claims that moneymaking, as a separate skill, is a very artificial argument.
Thrasymachus responds with a shepherd. The art of the shepherd, fattening the sheep, is not done for the sheep’s benefit. Similarly, rulers look after themselves (seemingly benevolent) but realistically exploit the subjects as the shepherd exploits his sheep. Socrates made a fatal error by introducing the doctor analogy, as both arguments hinge upon the same premises. If Socrates is right then so is Thrasymachus as they both argue from two specific points to huge generalizations. In addition, Socrates, by stating a skill is fulfilled in the interests of that which it rules, encourages fatuous assumptions e.g. that the sculptor acts for the good of the stone, the painter for the good of the canvas, and so on. Socrates is guilty of over-generalizing and thus does not offer an adequate response to Thrasymachus.
Secondly, Socrates tries to refute that injustice is more profitable than justice. Thrasymachus claims “Justice is another’s good, whereas injustice is acting in the vigorous pursuit of your own interests.” Socrates uses the notion of the expert and the analogy of the musician to prove his point. Transported onto justice, the just only outdoes the un-just whilst the un-just tries to outdo both the just and un-just. By deduction, injustice is not more profitable. Annas identifies this Musician argument as being “simply fallacious” and highly ambiguous. The just and unjust man may have different priorities thus evaluating them through means of expertise is pointless. Moreover, by using an analogy of expertise, Plato is carelessly inconsistent with his former argument with Polemarchus, where he states that justice cannot be a skill. Socrates presents the difference between the Just and the Unjust as one of expertise, with the unjust making errors that the just would not. This analogy creates an absurd idea of justice that was earlier refuted.
Thankfully, Plato has a sounder second argument, proving that injustice is a divisive force, not a source of strength. A group of thieves or aggresors must recognise duties to each other, otherwise they would never achieve anything; thus true injustice cannot be more profitable than justice. However, Socrates implies that duty unites a band of thieves irrespective of fear or success, and as Cross states, when fear eases and failures begin, group cohesion disintegrates. Despite implying justice’s superiority, Annas says the argument unsuccessfully refutes Thrasymachus’s position once Socrates’s rhetoric is rejected. However, once Thrasymachus accepts the analogy, posing no counter-argument, Socrates wins through only begging the question.
Thirdly, Socrates tries to refute the claim that the unjust man has a better life than the just man. Socrates answer is unsatisfactory; it leaves the reader confused. Could Plato have refuted Thrasymachus’s claim that injustice provides the better life? Socrates’s argument pivots on two points, Function of a thing and its Excellence (what allows it to carry out its function) e.g. a knife’s function is to cut; its excellence is a sharp blade. Similarly, when the excellence of a thing is diminished, the performance of its function also deteriorates, e.g. bluntness of the knife. Socrates applies this analogy to the human soul. To paraphrase Cross: the soul’s function is to live; therefore, the soul must have an excellence, which is justice. Therefore, the just soul is one that lives well, and the man that lives well is happy. Hence, the man who does not live well is not happy and unjust. Thus the just man has a better life than the not just man. Annas identifies this argument as “scandalous,” stating that people do not have functions unlike artifacts. This also contrasts with Plato’s ideas that the body is the instrument of the soul.
Thrasymachus supposedly agrees with Justice being the excellence of the soul and thus injustice the vice of the soul, but when and how did they agree upon this? Throughout the Socratic dialogues, Socrates refutes the interlockers’ arguments with their own approval, but in this instance Thrasymachus never fully approves. Guthrie identifies Thrasymachus’s sulkiness towards Socrates: “Yes – I won’t contradict you” (351d): “Go on, enjoy your argument…I won’t annoy the company by contradicting you” (352b): “So it appears from your argument,” (353e), “This is your holiday treat, so enjoy it, Socrates.” (354a), proving that Thrasymachus is not convinced, and agrees with Socrates in protest. Thus reader, too, is unconvinced.
Thrasymachus defeats himself by agreeing that Justice is the excellence of the soul, he should never have agreed with it, nor did Socrates have to argue for it. Annas asks why anyone would accept Socrates point, if they thought it true independently they would not need convincing through the function argument, it renders the argument futile. Thrasymachus could have stated injustice as the excellence of the soul, thus fulfilling its function by living badly. The argument from function does not automatically assume that the Just man has a better life. Thus, Thrasymachus could have used Socrates’ own argument to forward his claims.
In conclusion, Socrates does not adequately deal with Thrasymachus’s problem. Socrates’s intentions appear futile from the outset because firstly, as Socrates states in the Meno, how can they decide whether Virtue can be taught when they do not know exactly what virtue is yet: “The fact is that far from knowing whether it can be taught, I have no idea what virtue itself is.” Similarly how can he debate the advantages or disadvantages of Justice versus Injustice when they still do not have a definition of Justice itself? Secondly, to say injustice pays is not such an absurd idea; it is a real and dangerous argument that Socrates fails to counter adequately. His counter-arguments are weak and lack conviction, due to not fully understanding what justice actually is, and concludes by begging the question. Thirdly, most importantly, the nature of Thrasymachus as a philosophical opponent hinders Socrates’s investigation. Thrasymachus is a Moral skeptic, believing injustice pays better than justice. According to Guthrie, Thrasymachus’s purpose is “to unmask the hypocrisy and show how the meaning of Justice is being perverted” . He is not prepared to argue, leaving Socrates victorious. Here, Socrates’s method of argumentative questioning is insufficient and na?ve against a stubborn, powerful and philosophically certain moral skeptic. This is confirmed by the change in investigative approach in the latter books. Thus the ‘earlier’ Plato cannot adequately respond to Thrasymachus’s immoralist view of Justice.
Bibliography
Annas, Introduction to Plato’s Republic. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1981.
Cross and Woozley, Plato’s Republic. Macmillan, London, 1964.
Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy. Cambridge Press, Cambridge, 1969.
Plato, Tr. Hamilton, Collected Dialogues. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1989.
Plato, Tr. Desmond Lee, The Republic. Penguin Books, London, 1987.
Другие работы по теме:
The Republic Does Justice Pay Essay Research
Paper In the Introduction of Plato’s Republic, a very important theme is depicted. It is the argument of whether it is beneficial for a person to lead a good and just existence. The greatly argued position that justice does not pay, is argued by three men Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. By incorporating all three men into a collective effort I believe I can give a more flattering depiction of injustice.
Republic Book 1 Essay Research Paper Book
Republic: Book 1 Essay, Research Paper Book 1 of Plato’s Republic raises the question what is justice? Four views of justice are examined. The first is that justice is speaking the truth and paying one’s debt. The second is that justice is helping one’s friends and harming one’s enemies. The third view of justice is that it is to the advantage of the stronger.
Justice In The Republic Essay Research Paper
Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote One man s justice is another s injustice. This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is to give to each what is owed (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides.
Justice In Plato Versus Justice In Aristotle
Essay, Research Paper Justice in Plato vs. Justice in Aristotle Usually when you hear that someone is a teacher you tend to believe that the ideas of his or her pupils would be somewhat similar to those in his or her teachings. Often enough the student decides to take what he or she learns from his teacher and expands or even opposes his teacher’s ideas.
Summary Of Three Prominent Sophists Essay Research
Paper The three Sophists who had traveled into Athens during the fifth century B.C. each brought with them their own unique views on acquiring knowledge and the human order of behavior. Protagoras emphasized acquiring knowledge through perception, Gorgias stressed that knowledge cannot be communicated because of the lack of truth, and Thrasymachus took the point of view that injustice is an orderly form of behavior that one can profit.
Plato Essay Research Paper PlatoLIFEPlato was born
Plato Essay, Research Paper Plato LIFE Plato was born to an aristocratic family in athens, greece. When he was a child his father, Ariston, who was believed to be descended from the early kings of Athens died, and his mother, Perictione married Pyrilampes. As a young man Plato was always interested in political leadership and eventully became a disciple of Socrates.
PlatoS Biography Essay Research Paper Plato
Plato`S Biography Essay, Research Paper Plato’s LifeThere is an ancient story (very likely a true one) that Plato was originally named Aristocles, but acquired the nickname Plato (”broad” or “wide” in Greek) on account of his broad shoulders. Both of Plato’s parents were from distinguished aristocratic families.
SocratesPlato In EuthyphroRepublic Essay Research Paper I
Socrates/Plato In Euthyphro/Republic Essay, Research Paper I. In the Euthyphro, Euthyphro himself gives three proposals of piety. First, the pious is to prosecute the wrongdoer and the impious is not to prosecute the wrongdoer. Socrates disputes this example as lacking generality. He believed that in order to define piety, one had to find the form that made all pious acts pious.
Thomas Vs Moore Essay Research Paper Plato
Thomas Vs. Moore Essay, Research Paper Plato’s Republic and Thomas More’s Utopia have a relationship in that they both share an idea. These books both have the concept of an ideal society, although they do this for distinct reasons and they attain contrasted types of perfection. More describes Utopia as “the most civilized nation in the world”.
Plato Essay Research Paper Plato
Plato Essay, Research Paper Plato’s theory of knowledge is found in the Republic, particularly in his discussion of the image about the myth of the cave. Plato distinguishes between two levels of awareness:
Plato The Philosopher Essay Research Paper
“Plato the Philosopher” Plato was born in 427 BC and died in 347 BC. In his early life Plato was exposed to war service and political ambitions. However, he was never really sorrowful towards t
Plato Essay Research Paper In my opinion
Plato Essay, Research Paper In my opinion, Socrates? analysis of the human natural is very true as it ultimately brings us his definition of Justice. I agree with his theory of the human natural but not his social-political theory. But In order to understand Plato?s theory of human natural and his social-political theory.
The Idea Of Form Essay Research Paper
Chapter three The Idea of Form Introduction Plato-when philosophy came of age: we can also encounter the first philosophical system. Philosophical system- fundamental idea or theory that is worked out for all aspects of experience. Plato’s Philosophy- reality, knowledge, ethics, art, religion, cosmetology etc.
Plato Essay Research Paper The Use of
Plato Essay, Research Paper The Use of Dialectic to Define Justice Through the use of Socratic dialogue, Plato has an advantage at obtaining answers by refuting other philosophers. Plato is able to achieve an answer to the question, what is justice. He derives this answer through an analogy of the ideal city.
Socrates Vs Thrasymachus In The Republic Essay
, Research Paper The Republic is one of the finest examples of a Platonic dialog. The subject matter discussed therein is difficult to summarize, at best. Covering subjects such as politics, the fine arts, education, it is no wonder so many have written volumes analyzing its various aspects. However, the driving force behind the many discussions is pursuit of the answer to the simple, yet evasive question, “What is justice?”
Transmigration Of The Soul Plato
’s Theory Of Human Knowledge Essay, Research Paper Plato contended that all true knowledge is recollection. He stated that we all have innate knowledge that tells us about the things we experience in our world. This knowledge, Plato believed, was gained when the soul resided in the invisible realm, the realm of The Forms and The Good.
The Tempest Essay Research Paper Prospero
The Tempest Essay, Research Paper Prospero’s philosopher lacking Shakespeake’s Tempest is a window into his idea of a utopia. The island serves as a place much like that of Plato’s Republic and Moore’s Utopia. But, Prospero, the leader of Shakespeare’s Tempest is not the same philosopher king that both Moore and Plato wished to rule their respective societies.
Rebel Essay Research Paper For Judy lipstick
Rebel Essay, Research Paper For Judy, lipstick has both pleasurable and painful connotations. Her conflict with her father stems from her wearing it and his rejection of it. “He looks at me like I m the ugliest thing in the world,” she tells an officer. Her desire to get her father s attention with lipstick is characteristic of the Electra complex she has for him.
Plato Socrates Analysis Of Human Nature And
Justice Essay, Research Paper In my opinion, Socrates? analysis of human nature is very true as it ultimately brings us his definition of justice. I agree with his theory of human nature but not his
Poetics Essay Research Paper The subject of
Poetics Essay, Research Paper The subject of the Poetics is poetry, including epic poetry, tragedy and comedy. Unlike Plato, Aristotle regards poetry as a techne. The practice of poetry is governed by rules; these rules can be formulated and taught. Poetry is rationally comprehensible.
Plato Vs Aristotle Essay Research Paper How
Plato Vs. Aristotle Essay, Research Paper How do we explain the world around us? How can we get to the truth? Plato and Aristotle began the quest to find the answers thousands of years ago. Amazingly, all of philosophy since that time can be described as only a rehashing of the original argument between Plato and Aristotle.
Theory Of Recollection Essay Research Paper Plato
Theory Of Recollection Essay, Research Paper Plato has had a Theory of Recollection to explain our access of knowledge, that knowledge is from within, and not obtained through experience. The Theory of Recollection refers to the idea that recollection is like the soul, where it is maintained and never dying, therefore it constitutes the spiritual aspect of remembering.
The Republic By Plato Essay Research Paper
The Republic by Plato Throughout history, Plato has been conceived as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. His many theories have made us delve deep into our minds for new knowledge and understanding. He is looked up to by many all over the world in present day as well as in history. However, not even Plato is perfect.
The Republic 2
The Republic – Book 1 – Theme Of Justice Essay, Research Paper The subject matter of the ?Republic? is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the ?republic? contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice.
Plato Vs Nietzche- The Nature Of
Good Essay, Research Paper Plato Vs. Nietzsche: The Nature of Good Plato and Nietzsche have opposing views on the nature of good. Plato, as demonstrated in the “The Cave” and “Apology,” believes that Good is absolute. This means that he is of the opinion that there is one perfect version of Good for all people, whether they are rich or poor, powerful or weak.
Greek Philosophers Socrates Plato And Aristotle Essay
, Research Paper Greek Philosophers Greek Philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle had virtually the same beliefs about man’s relation to the State, although Plato’s political theory of the State was more rational
Plato Essay Research Paper There are many
Plato Essay, Research Paper There are many ways in which the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle have reached that of that of Saint Thomas Aquinas, due to the fact that Aristotle thought the world that we live in today is the ultimate reality. While Plato thought the world that we see every day is real but is not the ultimate reality.
Justice Essay Research Paper In the Republic
Justice Essay, Research Paper In the Republic, Plato attempts to answer one of philosophy’s most central questions: What is justice or right conduct? Thrasymachus, who is upset at
Socrates And Sophist Essay Research Paper Socrates
Socrates And Sophist Essay, Research Paper Socrates and Sophist Plato s Sophist is one of the only dialogues in which Socrates isn t the main character. This makes for an interesting question: why? Why would Plato stray from the norm of making his teacher the main focus of this dialogue? As I ve thought about this I ve come up with three possible explanations that may explain Plato s decision.
Nietzche Vs Socrates And Plato Essay Research
Paper Nietzsche s thoughts on finite differed dramatically from Socrates and Plato. Nietzsche believes that everyone should embrace the finite because you will enhance this life and make it more beautiful. He rejects the theory that eternity is of more importance than the present life. To Nietzsche, pursuing what you love to do is the only way to excellence.
Philosophies Of Socrates Plato And Aristotle Essay
, Research Paper Philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle The philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle had different points of-view but they were also similar in some ways. For example, all three
Plato Vs Socrates Essay Research Paper Plato
Plato Vs Socrates Essay, Research Paper Plato vs SocratesPlato was one of the most influential and significant philosophers throughout the antient and modern world. Through his rich blood line and his years of studying under Socrates, Plato was able to develop various theories, such as the Theory of Knowledge and The Forms.
The Unjust Life Is More Profitable Than
The Just Life Essay, Research Paper “The Unjust Life Is The Most Profitable Life” Plato argues in his book the “Republic” that the just life is better that the unjust life. Although, Glaucon has legitimate arguments, Plato refutes them effectively by showing that the just life is better.