essay on the three main theories in plato's republic

8/10/2019 Essay on the three main theories in Plato's Republic.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/essay-on-the-three-main-theories-in-platos-republic 1/10

POLSIS Year 1 Assignment Cover Sheet

UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAMSchool of Government & Society (College of Social Sciences)

Student ID No. (srn): 1421535

Programme of study: History and Political Science

Year of study: OneModule title: Classical Political Thought

Module banner code: 0820889 Word Count* 2089

Module leader: Christopher Finlay Seminar Teacher Christopher Finlay

Submission date: 8th December 2014

Assignment title: Which (if any) of the three main theories of justice outlined in Plato’sRepublic – those of Thrasymachus, Glaucon (and Adeimantus), orSocrates – do you think is the best one? Why?

Extension: No date approved:

Extension approved by: new date:

*Word Count: should not include coversheet, essay title, data in tables, the bibliography and any appendices

Important Assignment Related Notices

A. Penalties:

University policy requires that a penalty be deducted from the actual mark achieved for each working

day the assignment is late until 0 is reached. There is a strict deadline of 11:59pm on day of

submission. One grade step will be deducted for very 11:59pm deadline that is missed. Any

written assessment that exceeds the stated word limit by more than 10% will receive a one grade

step mark deduction.

B. Extensions & Plagiarism Information:

For more information about extensions and plagiarism please refer to your One Stop Shop course.

An Originality Report (OR) is generated by Turnitin every time a piece of work is submitted. The OR

shows where matches have been found between the submitted document and other existing

sources in the Turnitin database. Please note that all assignments will achieve a OR score due to

the use of standard coversheets.

C. Canvas Assignment Discussions Canvas provides a Discussion Area for each assignment. Both staff and students can leave

messages in this area. Please ensure that all communication is undertaken in a professional andpolite manner. Remember that:

Electronic discussions do not have the benefit of the nonverbal and vocal cues that normally

convey meaning in a traditional face-to-face conversation. Satire, sarcasm and “heat of the

moment” feelings can come across as rudeness. Please check your tone before you post a

Comment.

Instant delivery of a message does not mean an instant reply.

Please make an appointment within advertised office hours in the first instance to

discuss any matter of assignment feedback and grading. It is College policy that staff



will not be actively engaging in debate over matters of feedback and grades with individual

students via Canvas’ online Speed Grader system.



Assignment Grade:

100 98 93 88 85 83 78 75 73 68 65 63 58 55 53 48 45 43 38 33 28 23 18 13 8 3 0

Adm in Note: Marker pleasea) high l ight or box the grade from the above Grade Mark Steps that this assignment has achieved andb) insert the same % into th e grade box in the right hand column of Canvas Speedgrader.

Feedback

Overview of submission(Definition of question, integration of theoretical and empirical material where appropriate, engagement with relevant themes and issues,engagement with relevant academic literature)

Quality of research and analysis(Clarity and depth of argument, scope of argument, originality of approach, range of sources used, critical use of sources)

Evidence of key skills(Structure, clarity of expression, proper referencing and accompanying bibliography, formatting, evidence of sustained research)

Potential areas for improvement(How could a future submission be enhanced?)



Which (if any) of the three main theories of justice outlined in Plato’s Republic –

those of Thrasymachus, Glaucon (and Adeimantus), or Socrates – do you think is

the best one? Why?

In The Republic, Plato presents different theories of justice through a dialogue involving

multiple famous philosophers, each based on theories of how societies form and function. It is

difficult to judge the theories of justice contained in The Republic against each other as each satisfies

their own theorists, and would be unable to satisfy the others; Thrasymachus’ theory satisfies his

ruler-centric attitude toward justice, but would be unable to explain Glaucon and Adeimantus’ theory

of mutual security, which satisfies their belief in social contractual justice; and Socrates’ theory of a

just city satisfies his attitude toward justice as being always better than injustice, but does not satisfy

the others, until he manages to convince Glaucon and Adeimantus, at which point the debate ends.

As a result, each must be examined and critiqued individually, based on their own strengths and

weakness – as approached by each theorist in Republic, or modern critics – and on a general

guideline for how political philosophy should be approached, consisting of explanatory power,

elegance and consistency, both externally and internally.

Thrasymachus states, when asked by Socrates, that “justice is nothing other than the

advantage of the stronger party” (Plato and Waterfield, 2008, 338c) which he clarifies further by

explaining “each government makes it clear that what is right and moral for its subjects is what is to

its own advantage.” (Plato and Waterfield, 2008, 338e) Thrasymachus’ claim is based on the idea

that there is always a stronger party in a government or system that defines that system and legislates

in their own interests, which is a ‘legal positivist assumption’, that ‘justice’, in this sense, can be

observed directly in relation to obedience to laws. Thrasymachus’ theory is conservative; it favours

those in power, and so is likely to keep them there, but is also greedy, as Alan Ryan points out that

Thrasymachus claims, “the intelligent man acts to suit himself” (2013, page 52); it follows



Thrasymachus’ reasoning that only intelligent men act in their own interest, and only those who act

in their own interest become rulers, so rulers are intelligent men. He states to Socrates, “each

government passes laws with a view to its own advantage; democracies will pass democratic laws,

dictators will pass dictatorial laws, and so on and so forth.” (Plato and Waterfield, 2008, 338e)

Initially, Thrasymachus’ theory fits the guidelines for political philosophy; it has strong explanatory

power as it explains simply where power comes from in a state, and how that power is defined; it is

elegant, as it explains each political system and how the ruling party both upholds that system and

maintains their own position – for example, in a democracy, no democratic party will make a law to

undermine democracy; finally, the theory is consistent, which it owes to its simplicity. It appears that

Thrasymachus’ theory is sound, by the conditions in the guideline for political philosophy. However,

this is before Socrates’ critical eye is cast its way; his first criticism, after getting Thrasymachus to

confirm both that obedience to the rulers in this theory is desirable and ‘just’, and also that rulers

sometimes make legislative mistakes, is that “it is no more right to act to the advantage of the

stronger party, than it is to… act to their disadvantage,” (Plato and Waterfield, 2008, 339d) which

Polemarchus synthesises, “Thrasymachus admits that rulers sometimes issue orders that are bad for

themselves, and it’s right for people to carry out these orders.” (Plato and Waterfield, 2008, 340a)

For example, if the ruler reduced taxes to such a level that public institutions go underfunded, should

the moral citizen argue with the ruler (an injustice) and provide him with the correct level of taxes

(justice)? This creates a paradox; in so following such a contradicting order, the citizens becomes

both just and unjust. In this sense, Ryan summarises, “it is just not to be just which is simply

incoherent,” (2013, page 53). Socrates continues that the nature of justice is not to empower the

rulers further, but to “promote the interests of the weaker, not the stronger”, relating justice as a craft

to the craft of medicine, stating that “medicine does not consider the welfare of medicine, but the

welfare of the body.” (Plato and Waterfield, 2008, 342c) Here, by referring to justice as a skill to be

practised, Socrates undermines Thrasymachus’ broad concept of justice by showing how it cannot be



applied to individuals or crafts, and only states – something Socrates expands on with his own

theory. Thrasymachus then adjusts his theory, saying “do you suppose I would describe someone

who makes mistakes as the stronger party when he is making a mistake?” (Plato and Waterfield,

2008, 340c) Thrasymachus’ theory is now that justice is in the interest of the stronger party, as long

as that party is legislating and ruling in its interest. Furthermore, by accepting that rulers do make

mistakes, he undermines his own claim that rulers are intelligent men. Now, Thrasymachus’ theory

must be re-evaluate; by adding the second clause, Thrasymachus has readjusted his theory to ensure

external consistency. However, while initially elegant, Socrates has proven it is not, and the theory is

further compounded by the inclusion of the second clause, which reduces its simplicity, and

discredits its explanatory and action-guiding power in a sociological sense; while his readjustment

accounts for ‘true’ rulers, he fails to account for ‘false’ rulers, and is unable to say whether justice is

or is not obeying rulers who have made legislative mistakes. Clearly Thrasymachus’ theory is not

satisfactory for justice; while it can explain a state’s attitude towards justice, and the relationship

between obedience and justice in that state, it fails to explain if citizens should obey the law or not,

and why.

After Thrasymachus concedes that his theory is unsatisfactory, Glaucon begins to discuss

with Socrates what the nature of justice is, and comes to the conclusion that justice is the rules

created when all agree to exchange freedom for security; “it is a compromise between the ideal of

doing wrong without having to pay for it, and the worst situation, which is having wrong done to one

while lacking the means of exacting compensation.” (Plato and Waterfield, 2008, 359a) As with

Thrasymachus, the theory must be judged by the three main criteria; it functions well in respect to

explanatory power, as it manages to set out where power originates from - Santas notes, “In origin

Thrasymachus’ justice can be created by force, but Glaucon’s justice is created only by voluntary

and rational agreement,” and a further difference between them is that “Glaucon’s justice is

impartial, at least with respect to the freedom to harm others and the security from being harmed. On



the other hand, Thrasymachus’ justice, no matter what its origin, favours the rulers systematically –

his justice is partial to the rulers and that partiality is built into the laws.” (2010, page 41) Similarly

to Thrasymachus’ theory, it is internally and externally consistent due to its simplicity, as there is

little chance for it to contradict itself. Glaucon’s theory is also broader than Thrasymachus’, as while

it focuses on just laws as being in accordance with equal treatment, it also leaves room for unjust

laws, where ‘unjust’ refers to laws defying equal treatment, empowering one group over another.

However, where it fails is elegance; it may explain where justice originates in pluralistic systems,

where multiple groups fear harm, but in bipolar systems where one party may be aware that it is the

stronger, Glaucon’s theory makes no attempt to explain their will to surrender power. This therefore

raises the question, is Glaucon’s theory a justice of the weak? Have the “weak but many” forced the

“strong but few” to surrender their power? If this is the case, then Glaucon’s theory has confounded

itself, as it is based on rational agreement rather than force, yet a group has resorted to violence,

compromising the other’s security, destabilising the contract. Furthermore, as Santas points out, the

classic Greeks take for granted that one should be immoral or moral depending on which benefitted

oneself more; “it is hard to disagree with the idea that pursuing one’s own good is rational.” (2010,

page 44) Using the Ring of Gyges as the example, Glaucon declares that “this is substantial

evidence, it would be claimed, that morality is never freely chosen. People do wrong whenever they

think they can, so they act morally only if they’re forced to, because they regard morality as

something that isn’t good for one personally.” (Plato and Waterfield, 2008, 360cd) At this stage then,

Glaucon’s theory fails to satisf y the three criteria, yet still manages to explain why people behave

justly – fear of punishment. It appears that Glaucon’s theory is unsatisfactory and therefore

insufficient, yet still challenges Socrates’ claim that justice is always better than injustice, regardless

of the rewards and punishments, which sets Socrates up to establish Callipolis.

Socrates’ theory is often considered to be Plato’s own, since it is the most expanded, and

most supported by the protagonist. Throughout Republic, Socrates remains adamant that “ justice is



so great a good that anyone who possesses it is better off ” “(Kraut, 1992, page 31) and so now goes

about disproving Glaucon’s claim that people are only just under compulsion. Socrates’ theory of

justice is that everything acts as it is supposed to according to its natural function, to achieve a

virtuous existence; this theory is realised in his concept of Callipolis, the “beautiful city”, in which a

totalitarian group of Philosopher-Kings act and rule in the interest of the entire community that is

divided into three groups, ‘producers’ meaning the workers who satiate the appetite of the city,

‘auxiliaries’ as a personification of the spirit who defends the city and the people, and ‘guardians’

who rule the city and guide it towards a successful and profitable end. This is centred on a concept of

a division of labour, which Ryan symbolises with “if I am a good farmer and a terrible shoemaker, I

shall walk more comfortably if I exchange my wheat for a talented shoemaker’s shoes.” (2013, page

58) The difficulty in assessing Socrates’ theory is that, rather than observing states or peo ple as they

are and drawing a conclusion, as Thrasymachus and Glaucon do, Socrates constructs a whole society

as a metaphor for his theory, and that while Thrasymachus and Glaucon’s theories are anchored in

reality and can be assessed by realistic situations, Socrates’ is completely theoretical, meaning there

are very few criticisms to level against it, outside of the modern liberal democratic view that it

ignores key tenets such as liberty and freedom. However, it is functional as a way presenting how

reason acts in harmonising the different parts of a human soul in the same way that health

harmonises the body, and while Kraut identifies that Plato claims that “one’s soul is in good

condition if it exhibits a certain order among its components”, but also that Plato’s claim has limited

effectiveness as it does not tell us “what sort of order” (1992, page 315); Kraut notes that the

happiest type of people is the philosopher, “since he exercises kingly rule over himself” (1992, page

312). This connects with Callipolis as a representation of the human soul, and by proving that

Callipolis is the most stable city, Socrates proves that justice leads to personal stability; “reason

should rule and look after the well- being of the rest of the soul,” as it knows best what the soul

needs, “that spirit should be its ally” as a protection of the soul and enforcement of reason, and “its



appetites should be kept in check,” by allowing the soul to provide itself with what it needs

(pleasure). (Kraut, 1992, page 316). Socrates’ theory is suitable, then, in identifying what the soul

needs, and how best to achieve that need, and is probably the most satisfying for justice both for the

individual and for the city, provided both act as they are supposed to according to Plato’s theor y.

In conclusion, given the level of analysis and depth that he presents, Socrates’ theory is the

best for proving why a person should be just at all times; while Glaucon’s and Thrasymachus’

theories prove the importance of acting just in certain situations and contexts – for Thrasymachus,

this is determined by the rulers and deciders of the law, and for Glaucon by social contracts limiting

people’s ability to harm one another – Socrates presents the most convincing argument for justice as

a means to balance one’s soul and bring stability, while injustice brings instability.



Bibliography

Kraut, R. (1992) The Defence of Justice in Plato’s Republic. The Cambridge Companion to

Plato, Cambridge University Press, Ch. 10, pp. 311-337

Plato and Waterfield, R. (2008) The Republic. United Kingdom, Oxford University Press,

USA.

Ryan, A (2013) On Politics. United Kingdom: Penguin Books, USA.

Santas, G (2010) Understanding Plato’s ‘Republic’, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell (an

imprint of John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

essay on the three main theories in plato's republic

Documents