In his discussion with socrates, thrasymachus claims that justice is the interest of the stronger true the sophists were disciples of socrates who were dedicated to spreading his teachings. Justice is serving the interest of the stronger just action is obedience to the laws of one's state i would argue false obedience to agreed upon (thus rational) laws by the weaker and stronger makes the whole stronger and thereby in the interest of the whole. Thrasymachus puts his understanding of justice in these words “justice is nothing, but the advantage of the stronger” (plato’s republic, book 1, pdf p14) a conventional description of justice may be that it is the conforming to some moral and social code when passing judgment to make the decision that favors what is perceived to be right. Thrasymachus introduces this question in book i by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests.
--francisco haded--philosophy 107, section e--february 19 th, 2016 thrasymachus on justice in saying that justice is equivalent to being “the interest of the stronger” (p53, c), it seems that thrasymachus is taking a very stoic yet undeniably logical perspective towards the concept of what is just with an argument built upon the apparent nature of government, leaders, and the legal . In short, while one might expect thrasymachus’s definition of justice to imply that when the stronger/rulers act in their own interest, they are being just, thrasymachus apparently says just the opposite – that when the stronger/rulers act in their own interest, they are being unjust. Thrasymachus justice as the interest of the stronger topic 5: a defense of thrasymachus’ claim “justice is the advantage of the stronger” most people believe that they understand the essence of things like justice and virtue. Thrasymachus, silent until now, suddenly bursts into the debate, angry with polemarchus for yielding too easily but even more so with socrates for his ironic style after his accusations have been answered, thrasymachus poses his own definition of justice: the interest of the stronger.
Thrasymachus: justice is the interest -- ie what is beneficial to -- the stronger party, and therefore it is just for the weaker party to do whatever benefits the stronger party but plato says that the reality is just the opposite. The claim that justice is “nothing but the interest of the stronger” is a cynical one, but one thrasymachus repeats again and again in his long discourse with socrates. 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. Book i socrates - thrasymachus - glaucon i proclaim that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger and now why do you not me is the interest . Thrasymachus says that he will provide the answer if he is provided his fee he then says that justice is whatever is in the interest of the stronger party in a given state justice is thus effected through power by people in power.
According to thrasymachus – a main character in the book the republic – justice or right is simply what is in the interest of the stronger party (338c) as stated, thrasymachus' argument consists of three parts which he attempts to explain and defend to all in attendance, including socrates. For if, as you say, justice is the obedience which the subject renders to their commands, in that case, o wisest of men, is there any escape from the conclusion that the weaker are commanded to do, not what is for the interest, but what is for the injury of the stronger. Thrasymachus advances the thesis that justice or right conduct is what is in the interests of the stronger party (or at least is what the stronger party perceives to be in his or her interest) explain. Thrasymachus began by thinking only of strong and successful rulers(16) and, because of this, he first defines justice in a way that strictly applied only to their subjects, who by acting justly are serving the interests of their rulers, the stronger, and who are acting in a way that is to the interests not of themselves but of others.
Perhaps plato is suggesting that thinking of justice in this way opens the door to the thrasymachean view that justice always involves sacrificing our own self-interest to the interests of others thrasymachus defines justice as the advantage of the stronger what he means is that injustice always involves acting so as to benefit whoever is in . Justice is the advantage of the stronger: excerpt from plato’s republic 1 justice, as you say, is the interest of the stronger what, thrasymachus, is the. Thrasymachus’ argues that justice is only in the interest of the stronger because [political] power controls the lower social class –whether right or wrong only those who have power are in a position to come off better than the weak because they can ‘buy’ or create their own justice. Unlike thrasymachus, socrates does not believe that the city and the ruler's main goal and interest are money or power socrates does not promote injustice like thrasymachus as he believes a city will not function without necessary wisdom, and virtue which can only be found when justice occurs.
Plato's concept of justice: an analysis he defines justice as the interest of the stronger in the other words, might is right for thrasymachus justice . Thrasymachus, the sophist introduced in the republic has a very strong, and radical view of justice his definition of justice is very different from the definition of justice given by other characters such as cephalus, polemarchis, glaucon, adeimantis, and socrates himself. Thrasymachus argues that justice, or morality, if you will, is nothing more than the will of the strong to control the weak to say it another way, to thrasymachus, justice is the way (the tool) by which the strong make the weak work for the benefit of the strong.
Justice is the advantage of the stronger according to thrasymachus he even goes a step farther to say that injustice is stronger and freer than justice, yet justice is the advantage of the stronger. Plato’s republic book one, socrates vs thrasymachus william hooper, 09 aug 2016 in plato’s republic book one, thrasymachus famously argues “justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger”. According to plato the notion of justice is a person fulfilling his or her appropriate role in society and consequently giving back to society what is owed by them on the other hand thrasymachus’ notion of justice is the survival of the fittest those who are stronger will overpower those less . According to thrasymachus the sophist, justice is the advantage of the stronger according to thrasymachus, there are no rewards or benefits to be just, or to act justly those who do not behave justly, are benefited more than those who do.