Plato+Rep.+book+1+pp.+63-78


 * Write the proposals for what justice is and refutation of it. There are a few. Make sure you treat each evolution/reformulation of justice as a new proposal that also needs to be refuted. Ultimately, what does Socrates propose justice is? __Cite the pages you are referencing and put the arguments in order.__**

Thrasymachus joins the debate and gives his own proposal of what justice is, that it is "the interest of the stronger" and the people's obedience in following these rules (64). He contends that even though there are different types of governments, they all make laws according to "their own interests", and those in power punish those who break the law as unjust because they have conflicting interests (64). These rulers are not perfect, and do not always know what is good for everyone, and they themselves do not know the definition of justice, therefore, following an authority cannot be justice if the laws that are being followed are unjust. Because he says that obedients to the interest of the stronger is justice, but it can also be reverse (65). Therefore, justice is also //not// obeying, because those rulers are liable to err. (added by Geneva) However, Socrates says that the rulers cannot possibly know what is good for themselves and what is not because they are "liable to err" (65). The laws that the rulers create can actually be harmful to themselves without their knowledge. Since Thrasymachus says it is justice for the people to obey the laws created by their rulers, but following them may hurt the rulers, it contradicts the notion that justice is also "the interest of the stronger" (65). - Choong Hwa Shin

Socrates points out the flaw in Thrasymachus' definition of justice by asking "then justice, according to your argument, is not only obedience to the interest of the stronger but the reverse?"(65)This contradicts Thrasymachus' claim that justice is "the interest of the stronger" and also that justice is to obey the strong because rulers are "liable to err"(65). - Kevin Talati

Thrasymachus believes that justice "is the interest of the stronger"(64). Not only does Socrates question Thrasymachus' definition of justice, but he also questions Thrasymachus' definition of strength. "You cannot mean to say that because Polydamas, the pancratiast, is stronger than we are, and finds the eating of beef conductive to his bodily strength, that to eat beef is therefore equally for our good who are weaker than he is, and right and just for us?" (64) Socrates says in order to refute Thrasymachus' defintition that justice is the interest of the stronger. The stronger typically do things to help those who are weaker, and sometimes they don't but the weaker don't even realize that this has taken place. So, if the strong can do what they please that cannot be justice- Ashi Arora (edited by Maggie S.)

Thrasymachus continues to push his idea that "justice is the interest of the stronger" (66) through his argument about mistakes. Socrates questions the term "ruler" (66). Is it he a "ruler in the popular or in the strict sense of the term?" (66). Socrates then compares ruling to sailing or being a physician, and determines that each is a ruler of other sailors or the body, in his own right. He asks whether some of the authority of a sailor or a physician comes from his knowledge of sailing. Then he makes a distinction in the intent of those "rulers" by asking Thrasymachus if a physician is a "healer of the sick or a maker of money" (66), and Thrasymachus replies with the former, and with his own words, rejects the idea that physicians only look out for their own interests through money. Then Socrates explains how "every art has an interest" (66). He links the interests to the weak through explaining a sailor with the authority of sailing and a physician with the authority of prescribing medicines is doing so in the interest of the other sailors or of the patient (67). This leads to him refuting the argument that Justice is in the interest of the stronger. Socrates points out that arts "having no faults or defects...have no need to correct them, either by the exercise of their own art or of any other; they have only to consider the interest of their subject matter" (67). A ruler, one with authority such as a physician, does things in the interest of the weaker subjects who don't know any better. And since "arts are the superiors and rulers of their own subject" (67), their interest in only their subjects refutes Thrazymachus' argument. Thus, justice is not in the interest of the stronger.- Oliver Rose [edited by Anna Merkoulova]

Thrasymachus still supports "how justice is the interest of the stronger" (68). However, Socrates dispels that notion when he gives the example of the shepherd, and how the shepherd does not tend to his sheep because he wants to eat them or sell them, but rather "the //art// of the shepherd is concerned only with the good of his subjects" (69). Socrates takes his argument further by implying the excellence of function of form. The shepherd's true purpose is to care for the sheep's interest and that is because that good shepherd realizes shepherdness. His has performed the Functionalist theory of morality because his morality fits the Form. Socrates then broadens his example by asking, "if there be any good which all artists have in common, that is to be attributed to something which they all have the common use? (69)" His question connects each artist's good (his excellence of function of form) and its Lower Form to a Higher Form that unites them all, and that is justice. Justice allows the shepherd, the physician, the pilot, etc. to exude their Lower Forms and to perform at best, which does good for their subjects. -Joy Sales

Socrates also argues that justice is not in the interest of the stronger because "no one is willing to govern" (70). One reason is because rulers do not like "to take in hand the reformation of evils which are not his concern, without remuneration [repayment]" (70). Rulers do not govern to create justice. They rule for money, fame. Those who believe they do not rule for benifits govern for fear of lesser leadership. Socrates writes that "the worst part of the punishment is that he who refuses to rule is liable to be ruled by one who is worse than himself" (70). The wise realize it is a mistake to be ruled by one with less knowledge and a mistake to rule those smarter than themselves. If the city was filled with equally wise men, then there would be no need for a king, for the benifits from the populace are greater than the benifits of a single ruler. In this argument, Socrates refutes Thrasymachus' thought that governments provide for their own interest. - Aaron Leopold

On page 71, Thrasymachus calls justice virtue and injustice wise. In reaction, Socrates claims Thrasymachus believes "injustice to be profitable and justice not", however Socrates believes injustice is "discretion" and justice is "sublime simplicity". Socrates refutes Thrasymachus' belief that injustice is "wisdom and virtue" through the elenchus method. Through the Socratic dialectic, Thrasymachus is forced to contradict himself and attribute the same definition to both justice and injustice; thus proving that his definition of justice is incorrect and incomplete. *Sydnie Dobkin. Justice can have many definitions, based on perspective aswell. He also explains, and questions about the definition of what is just, and the characteristics of justice. He at first confirms that "justice is virtue and injustice vice" (71). And it is affirmed again that injustice is profitable and justice is not. But it is turned around, asking "do the unjust appear to you to be wise and good?" and Thrasymachus answers "I perceive that you wil call injustice honorable and strong, and to the unjust you will attribute all the qualities which were attributed by us before to the just, seeing that you do not hesitate to rank injustice with wisdom and virtue" (71). This is because perefect injustice is more gainful that perfect justice. (Added by Geneva)

Socrates dispels Thrasymachus' definition that justice is the what is in the interest of the strongest when he shows Thrasymachus that the every person who has an occupation considers the weaker's interest. Using analogies like,"Medicine does not consider the interest of the midicine, but the interest of the body..." (p. 67) he gets Thrasymachus to conceed that most arts are done because they consider the interest of their subjects. Then later Thrasymachus says that the injustice are wise and virtuous because they tend to come out of situations with more profit than someone who is just. Socrates again proves he is wrong, on page 73, by showing that it is folly to desire more than everyone, which is what Thrasymachus originally stated is what the unjust do. In the end Socrates admits that he still does not know what justice is, and the only conclusion he makes is that justice is wisdom and virtue, and injustice is evil and folly. **Kyle Spesard**

On page 75, Tharsymachus agrees that justice imparts harmony and friendship while injustice creates discontent and quarrel. In any size group injustice creates discontent and in a single person, they retain their natural power. Even the injust have some capacity for justice because if they didn't the injust would destroy themselves along with the just and would also be incapable of action because they are out of balance. Therefore no one is truly unjust. ~JChen (edited by maggie straszewski)

On page 76-77 Tharsymachus agrees with Socrates that everything has an 'end' or a purpose of excellence, and that justice is "the excellence of the soul, and injustice the defect of the soul." Socrates then concludes that injustice can "never be more profitable than justice." After Tharsymachus seems satisfied with this, Socrates refutes his own conclusion by going beyond what is justice, and questioning the nature of it. He says that he can still know nothing because he doesn't know if justice is a virtue or folly, and what are the different advantages of injustice. His only real conclusion is that he still knows nothing about what justice is, and therefore not know whether the just man is happy or unhappy. *Melanie Lee **(addition) Through Socrates' method of questioning (elenchus), Tharsymachus has discovered the reality behind the word "justice". It's a word he struggles to define because he knows "nothing at all" (78), but through admission of his lack of knowledge, can begin to understand the concept of those undefinable words.