Thrasymachus's Argument Analysis

480 Words2 Pages
Plato thinks we should be moral because being moral is intrinsically good, even though it may not have any immediate reward in life. Basically, he argues that some things, like morality, are good in themselves, no matter what the consequences may be. Morality is an absolute good so that people who embrace it are better off, even if they suffer negative consequences as a result. It is more advantageous for someone to be moral and have a terrible life than for someone to be immoral and have a terrific life. This argument is analogous to Socrates argument that justice is an ultimate good. In the same way that a man should be moral because morality is intrinsically good, Socrates argues that a man should be just because justice is an intrinsic…show more content…
Justice in a city is when each person does what they are meant to do and tends to their own business. Justice in a person is when each part of the soul does what it is supposed to do. The rational part can control the irrational part, therefore making someone act in a just way. An attack on Plato's claim about morality would be similar to Thrasymachus's attack on Socrates' claim about justice. Thrasymachus makes the argument that justice is only advantageous to the strong, and people who are unjust hold more power than people who are just. He says that being unjust is better than being just, because it gives an advantage to those who are unjust, in the same way that an unjust city may be better able to defend itself, defeat its enemies, and grow richer. An analogous argument can be made against the idea that a man should be moral, since morality does not necessarily confer any reward or gain. Plato’s argument that being moral or just is good in itself debunks Thrasymachus’ argument. Thrasymachus makes the claim that being unjust is better than being just becomes it confers an instrumental value, but Plato’s argument is that being moral or just is has an absolute value, and therefore Thrasymachus cannot claim that being
Show More
Related

  • Thrasymachus Vs Plato

    662 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thrasymachus's theory would only serve gang leaders as an excuse to lead aggressive way of life. Meanwhile, Plato's view of justice can serve as a base for an anti-gang coalition. Such coalition will foster understanding of hard impacts of social injustice and

    Read More

More about Thrasymachus's Argument Analysis

Open Document