How does Socrates refute Thrasymachus definition of justice?

How does Socrates refute Thrasymachus definition of justice?

Thrasymachus sings the praises of the art of rulership, which Thrasymachus sees as an expertise in advancing its possessor’s self-interest at the expense of the ruled. So Socrates tries to refute Thrasymachus by proving that it is justice rather than injustice that has the features of a genuine expertise. (

How does Socrates answer Thrasymachus position?

In response to Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus, Socrates seeks to show that it is always in an individual’s interest to be just, rather than unjust. Socrates sets out to defend the idea that it is always in one’s interest to be just and to act justly and he presents the just person as one who has a balanced soul.

Does Socrates answer Thrasymachus challenge?

This argument has been very neatly severed from the dialogue. It does not require an answer from Socrates. It does not follow, strictly speaking, from an examination of the Republic that Thrasymachus’ position on the extrinsic goods resulting from unjust actions is correct.

What was Socrates Thrasymachus challenge?

Regardless of how we interpret Thrasymachus’s statement, the challenge to Socrates is the same: he must prove that justice is something good and desirable, that it is more than convention, that it is connected to objective standards of morality, and that it is in our interest to adhere to it.

What according to Socrates is justice in the person soul?

According to Socrates, justice will arise when the three parts of the soul are working together and are in harmony. If all the parts of the soul work together and do their own part without interferring with one another then we have a just person.

Does Socrates agree with Thrasymachus?

Both Socrates and Thrasymachus agree on the idea that “the just is some kind of advantage” (Plato, Grube, and Reeve pg. 15). However, the idea that this advantage is solely for the “stronger” as Thrasymachus puts it, is something that they do not agree on.

What Thrasymachus thinks of morality?

Thrasymachus: morality is the rules or conventions imposed on others by those in power for their own benefit. Being immoral is to one’s advantage. That is, being immoral does not necessarily make one unhappy.

Is justice the interest of the stronger?

Demanding payment before speaking, he claims that “justice is the advantage of the stronger” (338c) and that “injustice, if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice'” (344c).

What are the three parts of the soul according to Socrates?

Socrates seeks to define justice as one of the cardinal human virtues, and he understands the virtues as states of the soul. So his account of what justice is depends upon his account of the human soul. According to the Republic, every human soul has three parts: reason, spirit, and appetite.

How did Thrasymachus respond to socrates’point?

Throughout the argument, Thrasymachus passively assents to Socrates’ individual points. But as we shall see later, he rejects the conclusion drawn from these. From an objective viewpoint, one immediately questionable aspect of this argument is Socrates’ idea that ruling is an art in the same sense that medicine and navigation are arts.

Who is responsible for justice according to Thrasymachus?

Justice according to him is solely for the ruler, who rules the city. Unlike Socrates, Thrasymachus claims that there is no advantage for the weaker to be just. According to Thrasymachus, “A just man always gets less than an unjust one” (Plato, Grube, and Reeve pg. 19).

How did thrasymachus’views affect the Athenian people?

His views did not serve as a shock to the Athenian people however; his views were immensely debated on and often argued against by Socrates, the leading character in The Republic. Socrates and Thrasymachus both reject traditional moral values on the grounds of what they see as reality.

What does Thrasymachus mean by ” the advantage of the stronger “?

Justice, he says, is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger. Though Thrasymachus claims that this is his definition, it is not really meant as a definition of justice as much as it is a delegitimization of justice. He is saying that it does not pay to be just.