NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... ng to Cephalus does not generate sufficient understanding of justice. As Cephalus departs from the argumentative scene and hands over the argument to Polemarchus whose view is that justice is to render to each his due. Polemarchus claims that justice consists of benefitting ones friends and harming ones enemies.
Polemarchus narrows his distinction to friends and enemies. If justice depends on whether one is a friend or an enemy than it is uncertain how that distinction will be made. The judgement whether someone has acted justly will depend on whether he is classified as a friend of foe. Polemarchus attitude to justice, unlike his fathers, does not recognize any quality inherent in justice. Polemarchus sees justice as a product of the distinction with regard our interaction of that dealings as with friends or enemies. If returning something borrowed is harmful then its being a just act depends on whether the lender is friend or not.
However, Polemarchus view does not distinguish acting justly from acting in accordance with what is socially expected, as the treatment of an individual depends upon the nature of their relationship with those in position. Polemarchus is unable to explain that there are specific characteristics to justice which distinct it from other virtues. He is able to show that helping friends and harming enemies achieve some good, but he cant show why such actions belong to the just man. Nor can Polemarchus say how to help the friend and harm the enemy according to the just way and he therefore cannot say how the just way of helping friends differs from the non-just way. Polemarchus has difficulty in defining th measure of justice. It is first suggested as wars and alliance and alter as deals of financial agreements.
Socrates refutes Polemarchus argument by saying that one can rely on the just when money and everything else is not in use. Polemarchus failure to identify any specific aims of justice has the further consequence that he cant declare unjustifiable acts such a theft or perjury. His reference to benefitting friends and harming enemies suggests that he thinks of justice as a virtue confined by social aims. Justice may be thought of as an aspect which is to benefit the agent. But just acts which harm friends or benefit enemies are ultimately not beneficial to the mediator and therefore cannot be virtuous. Socrates dialectic is to undermine Polemarchus belief that th goodness of justice is to be understood in terms of its social realms.
This belief is undermined because if virtue is a human quality and justice is a part of virtue, then justice in that view does not limit the type of character involved in such behavior. And if justice is a virtue and its goal is something good, then we should be able to correlate a relation between the acts of goodness and justice and such is not the case with the Polemarchian view. As portrayed by Plato, Thrasymachus is presented as having a consistent and coherent attitude to justice. Thrasymachus suggests that the true nature of a just conduct can only be grasped from the perspective of power. According to Thrasymachus, to seek a moral understanding of justice is pointless. The confrontation between Socrates and Thrasymachus and the clash that erupts as a result of their extreme views is between that of two conceptions of political power.
The characteristic of just actions, as defined by Thrasymachus is defined as doing the good of another as seen from the perspective of power. Thrasymachus further defines justice in his long speech that the good reasons people have for praising justice and condemning injustice have nothing to do with their believing that it is the ends of justice that are desirable. Thrasymachus further exploits justice by his statement that justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger, but he does not define what the advantage is per se. Thrasymachus definition does not illustrate justice as a moral quality, it is the advantage to only those who are at the position of power; justice converted into political power by the polls of Thrasymachus. To Thrasymachus, justice is the advantage of the stronger because it places the seemingly just man in a strong position of control.
Thrasymachus explication of justice is in view to promote the interests of those in power in every case. He introduces a criterion of justice: Justice is really the good of another, the advantage of the more powerful and the ruler, but the personal harm of those who obey and render service. Injustice is the opposite and rules over those who are truly simple and just, and those over whom it rules do what is of advantage to him who is more powerful, and by rendering him service they make him happier, but themselves not at all. Thrasymachus claims justice as the good of another as an extension of the advantage of the stronger. A ruler acts in accordance with the laws of a polls only to promote his own advantage whereas injustice is what is profitable and advantageous to oneself. But if we analyze Thrasymachus speeches he seems to suggest that injustice is what advantages a person and makes him stronger and so it is difficult to see why he defines justice as the advantage of the stronger.
But from the fact that justice may advantage someone else-the stronger, it does not follow to say that it damages the other, perhaps it advantages both. Thrasymachus second speech states justice as doing the good of another. People who consistently pursue their own advantage and are completely unjust are the strong and happy ones as it is the injustice that makes them happy. They know how to use the just person for their own advantage, they are the ruler of the just person. Rulers are a paradigm case of those in control. The essence of ruling is, therefore, to be unjust and that is why a tyrant is a perfect ruler.
He always knows what is to his advantage and how to acquire it. Thrasymachus view of justice is appealing but therein lies a moral danger and this is refuted by Socrates. Out of the confrontation with Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, Socrates emerges as a reflective individual searching for the rational foundation of morality and human excellence. The views presented by the three men are invalid and limited as they present a biased understanding of justice and require a re-examination of the terminology. The nature in which the faulty arguments are presented, leave the reader longing to search for the rational foundations of morality and human virtue. Bibliography
- Allan, Bloom.
The Republic of Plato. Second Edition, Basic Books. 1991 Foster, M. B. The Political Philosophies of Plato. New York, Russell and Russell. 1965 Annas, J. An Introduction to Plato's Republic.
Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1981 White, N. P. A Companion to Plato's Republic. Indianapolis, Hackett. 1979 Gay, J. An Inquiry into the Works of Plato. New York, McGraw. 1961.
Free research essays on topics related to: thrasymachus, polemarchus, plato republic, enemies, political power
Research essay sample on Plato Republic Political Power
