Aristotle and Thrasymachus Aristotle's theory of moral virtue presents a challenge to the view of Thrasymachus that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Thrasymachus believes that it does not pay to be just, and that justice in and of itself is a flawed concept. When a person behaves justly, that works to the advantage of other people who reap benefits from it, not to the advantage of the person who acts in a just manner. He argues that a person's natural desire is to have more, and that justice goes against that and becomes an unnatural restraint. However, his argument is flawed and can be easily challenged. This is done through many of the statements Aristotle makes in Ethics. For example, Aristotle says that "…the lovers of what is noble find pleasant the things that are by nature pleasant; and virtuous actions are such, so that these are pleasant for such men as well as in their own nature" (Bk I). Being just and virtuous, therefore, are not at all advantages of the strong, but instead are joys and pleasantries for those who seek these...
There he is indicating that Thrasymachus cannot be correct because there is more than one meaning for justice, and that meaning is not simple. While justice might be an advantage of the stronger in some cases, it could easily have a different meaning in another situation or context. He wants those who read his words to see the value in being just, as opposed to looking for ways to use it to oppress others or themselves in some way. Justice is about happiness and freedom, not about constraint and rules. While Thrasymachus is very black and white about what he believes regarding justice, Aristotle is much more open regarding what justice can, could, and should mean to people. With that openness comes an understanding that Thrasymachus does not possess.
In conclusion, in Aristotle's account, some ends may be worth choosing for their own sakes and for the sake of happiness. Friends, honor, pleasure, and moral virtue may be worth choosing for two reasons: for their intrinsic value and for their contribution to happiness. Aristotle's ethics is eudaimonistic, meaning that every action is ultimately to be justified by reference to the person's own happiness. For Aristotle, anything that fulfills its essential
Philosophy In Book I of Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus provide intellectual foils for Socrates's ethical philosophy. Socrates responds to Thrasymachus's stance, which is essentially that, "the life of an unjust person is better than that of a just one," (p 88; 347e). Thrasymachus goes so far as to state that justice is "noble naivete," and therefore not worth pursuing at all (348c). Glaucon immediately takes the side of Thrasymachus,
Declaration of Independence was written and put into effect in the late 1700's. That is a bit of time ago but the work of Plato and Aristotle came a long, long time before that. Even with the major time disparities involved, there are some common themes and ideas that exist among both of the philosophers and the author of the Declaration of Independence. Even while keeping the focus on the
'" (p. 42). This clearly indicates that Thrasymachus was not won and while Socrates ended the argument on a good note but it was more his own approval of his views than Thrasymachus'. We can thus say with confidence that Thrasymachus was also a wise man of considerable sagacity. He knew that Socrates could move people with the power of his speech and was thus completely prepared to meet his barrage
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now