Philosophy of Justice in Plato's Republic - Essay Example

?In book I of Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus challenges Socrates with a very specific definition of Justice. What is this definition, and how does hedefend it? What analogies do Socrates and Thrasymachus use to support their respective claims? How is Thrasymachus' position finally defeated? With whom do you agree and why? Justice, as all social concepts, can have different aspects. The interpretation of justice within each era has been based on different criteria. In ancient Greece, justice was often related to the balance of power within the society. This phenomenon is reflected in the dialogue between Socrates and Thrasymachus, as the dialogue has been incorporated in book I of Plato’s Republic. The view of Socrates on justice is in opposition with that of Thrasymachus, as revealed through the arguments developed by each of them. The evaluation of these arguments leads to the assumption that Socrates’ thoughts on justice are based on fairness and equality, a fact that ensures justice, in all its aspects. On the other hand, the view of Thrasymachus on justice follows a different direction, being able to result to social conflicts. It is probably for this reason that, at the end, Thrasymachus recognize the value of Socrates’ view on justice and accept his failure in understanding the actual role of individuals within the society, including their role in the promotion of justice. In accordance with Thrasymachus, ‘justice is nothing else but the interest of the most powerful’ (338c Plato’s Republic I). Thrasymachus defends the above definition by developing a series of arguments, as described below. At the first level, Thrasymachus states that the types of polities globally are many. There are countries based on monarchy, others are based on aristocracy and others are based on democracy (338d). In each of these countries, laws are set in accordance with the interests of the most powerful; it is explained, that no matter the type of the polity, the laws imposed on people, i.e. the citizens, are aligned with the interests of those who govern, who are the most powerful within each particular society (338e). This process is followed in all countries, despite their differences in regard to their polity. In this context, in accordance with Thrasymachus, the interests of the most powerful are promoted in each country, no matter the type of this country’s polity. Thus, justice, as based on the laws introduced by the most powerful, serves the interests of the latter; the above phenomenon, as Thrasymachus notes is common in all countries, no matter their polity. In regard to the above argument of Thrasymachus, Socrates notes that governors are also likely to introduce laws, which are in opposition with their interests; citizens are obliged to respect these laws, as also the laws serving the interests of governors (339e). In other words, citizens have to deal with two different types of laws: those that serve the interests of governors and those serving the interests of citizens. From this point of view, the view of Thrasymachus that justice is only the interest of the most powerful is proved to be invalid. In regard to the above, Thrasymachus supports that governors cannot introduce laws that are opposed to their interests. Rather they are expected to always promote their interests, making no mistakes in choosing laws that promote those interests (340d), exactly like those who are experts in a particular science or art. Those experts do not make mistakes, since in this case, they would lost their power, as resulted from their role as experts (340d). In this context, as Thrasymachus notes, a true governor is not expected to make mistakes; therefore he promotes only his interests (341a). Socrates abjures the above argument referring to the example of a doctor, as used previously by Thrasymachus. Socrates notes that a doctor is a therapist; therefore, he has to take care of the health problems of ill people (341c). In the above case, the interests of ill people are above the interest of the doctor, a fact that further supports the view of Socrates that justice does not, necessarily, promotes the interests of most powerful. Thrasymachus further supports his view on justice referring to the position of righteous compared to the unjust. More specifically, Thrasymachus notes that everytime that a conflict is developed in regard to economic transactions the unjust is more likely to be exonerated, than the righteous (343d). Also, if taxes are imposed, those who are wealthier finally contribute less than those who are of low income (343d). In the same context, righteous, if they are governors, they are likely to ignore their own interests and focus on the interests of the public, suffering, often, significant damages (343e). Socrates responds to the above arguments of Thrasymachus referring to the following facts: all public services are delegated to people on the basis of a particular reward (346a). In private sector also, a similar approach is used. A payment is set as a reward for each individual’s work in regard to the particular position. The specific reward is not considered as equal with the science or the art in which the individual is involved, but just a monetary support for covering personal needs (346b). Thrasymachus agrees with the above explanation considering that no science or art is equal, as of its nature, with the amount given as a reward for being engaged to the specific science or art. In this context, the role of a person within the society cannot affect justice, since the role is independent from the money gained from it (346e). Also, in the context of this role, people can be benefited, as in the case of ill persons who are treated by the doctor. Therefore, the job position of a person does not negatively affect justice, since those who are primarily benefited are the people to which the relevant services are offered. Thrasymachus agrees with the thoughts of Socrates in regard to the relation between science/ art and the reward involved (346e) Socrates continues arguing that a wise man is expected to avoid acting against the interests of another wise man, a fact accepted by Thrasymachus (349b); moreover, a wise man would treat the same the unjust man (349b), avoiding causing damages to him or opposing to his interests (349b). In opposition, the unjust man would harm the same a wise man and another unjust man (349b, c), a fact also accepted by Thrasymachus. In other words, it is implied that a wise man is expected to wish to have the characteristics of a wise man, while the unjust wishes to be bad (350b, c). However, this fact comes to an opposition with Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, which is considered as related to wisdom and power. Therefore, justice would be never influenced by unjust people, but only by wise people. At this point, Socrates refers again to the initial description of justice, as given by Thrasymachus. As noted Thrasymachus, justice is related to wisdom and power, the power of the governor (338c). However, according to Socrates, justice is related to piece while the unjustice is related to conflicts (351d); it is also noted that unjustice cannot negatively affect a society, but also a group of people, even the psychology of a specific person, making him incapable of thinking of anything (352a), a fact accepted by Thrasymachus. Therefore, a person that promoted unjustice would never be able to develop a critical way of thinking; rather he would be expected to hate justice (352a), a fact also accepted by Thrasymachus. The above arguments lead to the final assumption in regard to justice; justice can be initiated only when the soul has kept its virtues (353e); a wise man could promote justice while an unjust man could not be able to support justice (353e). This assumption, as proved through the arguments exchanged between Socrates and Thrasymachus, leads to the rejection of the view of Thrasymachus on justice (338c); justice is not the power of the most powerful to promote their interests; it is rather the expression of wisdom and goodness (355b), which are virtues that cannot exist in unjust people; Thrasymachus admits the above fact, recognizing his failure in describing appropriately justice (355c). Works Cited Plato’s Republic, Book I. Daedalus Publishing Read More