Bobby Tucker
Grand Canyon University: PHI-305
October 5, 2014
Why Be Moral
Plato’s idea of justice is along the thought of morality, or righteousness while Thrasymachus thoughts were that justice meant superiority. This essay will discuss the two views of justice as well as give purpose to the question of “why be moral?” Before answering the question, one must compare the two views of the scholars to get both sides. There could be several reasons for living by a moral code, this essay will discuss two.
Plato writes in The Republic about a place of ideal perfection, especially in laws, government, and social conditions, called the city. This city has three parts to it, Guardians, Soldiers, and Workers that make it function justly (Rosen, 2005). The analogy that he gives to a just city he also compares to that of a three part person. Plato claims that people have three parts to them- reason, spirit, and appetite (Clark & Poortenga, 2003). If the just city can live and abide by the four virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice, then so can a just person (Clark & Poortenga, 2003). Justice is defined by Plato as a morality or righteousness. He uses the Greek word Dikaisyne, which ultimately means righteousness. Living a life of righteousness, or a moral life, will bring human happiness (Clark & Poortenga, 2003).
Thrasymachus, on the other hand, argues that the stronger you are the more just you are. His reasoning leads to the thought of rulers being moral and just, and people who are under them are those of injustice (Hourani, 1962). After debate with Socrates, Thrasymachus definition of justice being obedience to the laws is modified as Hourani (1962) points out to: “obedience to those laws which are in the real interest of the stronger” (p. 120).
With both views of justice in mind, let us look to the scripture to learn about justice and righteousness. In Hebrews 1:9 the author states that “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions.” With this thought, neither Plato nor Thrasymachus are correct. Justice is not about being stronger or living a “right” life. Justice is about loving righteousness and hating lawlessness. This takes away the thought that the stronger you are the more just you are as well as the more moral you are, the better you are. In the Bible, Jesus fulfilled a law (Romans 10:4) “Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” Justice or righteousness is only achieved by believing in Christ. One cannot obtain it from any act they do or status they have. A person is not righteous because they do good things as well as a person in not unrighteous because they do bad things. We are who we are in Christ no matter the actions we do. God legally sees us a righteous. Philippians 3:9 says “and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.” And Ephesians 4 says “22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.”
You cannot obtain righteousness by being a good person according to God’s Word. It is only through faith in Christ and His redemptive work that this is achieved. No matter which philosopher you like, they will always miss the mark when they stray away from the God of Creation being the reason we have or have not. When we put things in the hands of humans by way of action, it takes us away from the true meaning of the question “why be moral”. My answer to the question is: I will be moral because Christ in me in moral. He is the driving force inside me. I will be a good person and follow the laws because of who I am in Christ, not because of what I want to get out of it. Plato’s analogy of man being three in one follows Paul’s thought in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 where he states that we are to be whole, spirit, soul and body. Man is a spirit; he has a soul and lives in a body. This is the driving force behind being a good person. If one accepts Christ in their life, then their spirit in righteous. The issue we face is that we have a soul (mind, will, and emotions) that needs to be aligned with our spirit. Once this alignment happens then our bodies will be made whole, or glorified (Philippians 3:21) “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.”
Another reason to having a moral code has nothing to do with God at all. Say that there is no Heaven of life after this one. There is not eternal reward for living a life with morals. The quality of life that a person has by following a moral code is worth it. Living a life with moral is more rewarding than living a life without them.
In conclusion, Plato and Thrasymachus argue the point of justice being something that is decided by human effort. No matter which philosopher you follow, they both give tribute to man and not to God. Once one realizes that it is only by serving God that one can see true justice in the sense of righteousness, they will truly have justice. It is not whether you follow some moral code or if you are born to a certain family that makes justice happen, it is a Just God that brings justice to His people.
References
Clark, K. J. & Poortenga, A. (2003). The story of ethics: Fulfilling Our Human Nature, Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hourani, G. F. (1962) Thrasymachus' definition of justice in plato's "republic", Phronesis Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 110-120, Published by: BRILL Retrieved From: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4181704
Life Application Study Bible is the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. All rights reserved.
Rosen, S. (2005). Plato's republic : A Study. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press.
Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Both Thrasymachus and Machiavelli have overlapping points in them views of justice and virtu. In Thrasymachus’s definition of justice and Machiavelli’s definition of virtu some of the concepts that overlap are the willingness to do whatever necessary for the good…
- 267 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Thrasymachus is a sophist who attacks Socrates at the beginning of his appearance. When we analyze his argument and his general way of carrying himself in debate, we can fully see the arrogance in his character. Thrasymachus ends his participation in the conversation by meanly congratulating Socrates on his "victory," and telling Socrates to "feast on his triumph" as if the argument on defining justice is some type of contest. His argument, the question of following the stronger, and the question of what justice is, might finally make sense, if we allow him to wrongfully mix two concepts of right and might. This is to say that Thrasymachus believes the mightier one gets the righter they are and the more just it is to follow…
- 1372 Words
- 6 Pages
Good Essays -
Let us map out Thrasymachus' first presentation of justice. Thrasymachus argues in 338e that " each ruling group sets down laws for its own advantage everywhere justice is the same thing, the advantage of the stronger." Thrasymachus seems to conclude that…
- 1831 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
What is justice? Today, where it is common for people to only look out for themselves, justice is an extremely important tool. But what exactly is justice? What is right, what is wrong, and who decides that? To find an accurate definition, we as a society should not just focus on one opinion, but the views of many. Similar to how our society is today, the society in The Republic, lived the same, struggling to determine what the correct definition of justice was, and how to pursue the right answer. In the paper, I will be discussing all aspects of Plato’s Republic, including the Philosopher King and his nature, and justice in that time.…
- 114 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays -
Thrasymachus: Justice is defined as might makes right. The advantage of the strong. He is saying that it does not pay to be just. Just behavior works to the advantage of other people, not to the person who behaves justly. Thrasymachus assumes here that justice is the unnatural restraint on our natural desire to have more. Justice is a convention imposed on us, and it does not benefit us to adhere to it. The rational thing to do is ignore justice entirely.…
- 2098 Words
- 8 Pages
Good Essays -
What is justice is a question that has plagued philosophers since the time of Plato when he wrote The Republic to present day. In the book, Plato uses the dialectic, between Socrates and other Athenians like Polemarchus, Cephalus, and Glacuon, to try and find the definition of justice. Through the voice of Glaucon, Plato defines justice as a compromise of sorts between advantage and fear, and injustice as the things that we wouldn’t…
- 962 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Politically, Plato explains the paradox of justice and the law. Plato believes that absolute justice is the same for everyone without exception. This justice goes beyond power and or money. He feels justice is not necessarily the law. "Law is an imperfect form of justice." What is legal is not necessarily moral. In Book 1 of Plato 's The Republic, Plato explains that justice is a balance between reason, courage and man 's needs or in other words, the head, the heart and the stomach. He goes on to explain that justice or fairness does not always mean equal. The law may change but justice remains constant. A good rule or law however is a just rule. Plato felt that to get people to act justly one must teach them ethics and values. He also believed that along with these ethics and values we must have a reasonable understanding of these rules. An understanding of these rules is needed so people are more apt to comply with them and therefore maintain a just and fair society.…
- 2775 Words
- 12 Pages
Good Essays -
In his philosophy, Plato places a large emphasis on the importance of the idea of justice. This emphasis can be seen especially in his work ‘The Republic’ where, through his main character Socrates, he attempts to define the nature of justice and to justify this definition. One of the methods used by Socrates to strengthen or rather explain his argument on justice is through his famous city-soul analogy, where a comparison between a just city and a just soul/individual is made. Through this analogy, Socrates attempts to explain the nature of justice, how it is the virtue of the soul and is therefore intrinsically valuable to the individual, but it becomes apparent in the analysis and evaluation of the analogy that there may have been several purposes behind it. Inconsistencies within the analogy itself also raise questions to the validity in Plato’s definition and justification of justice.…
- 1949 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
After that outburst from Thrasymachus showing pride of himself I asked Socrates what was all that about. He tells me that first I have to know who is Thrasymachus, and how he is portrayed in “The Republic” written by Plato. He is portrayed as a sophist and cynic who argues that people are selfish. By this argument that Thrasymachus yelled to us that “justice is in the interest of the strong and the subjects obeying the interest of the strong” he claims that whoever is at the top of the hierarchy is ultimately the one who has the most power, and that the ruler comes up with this rules on a self-interest base. He claims that justice is mostly the interest of the strong, and those who have more authoritarian power are those who rule the justice system and the system in general. As he states “in all states alike “right” has the same meaning, namely what is for the interest of the party established in power, and that is the strongest” (Thrasymachus, 13). Ultimately, each leader makes…
- 693 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
How is it that Thrasymachus can be so eager to speak against justice, claiming that justice is for fools since the just life ultimately does not pay off compared to the unjust life, which is full of exploitation and oppression of the weak; But from his original argument, Thrasymachus describes justice as the advantage of the stronger party. This inconsistency reveals that even though Thrasymachus himself denies this in his speech, he himself does have an understanding of the common good that is shared in society of some underlying values or ideas of what justice is. Therefore, I as the reader, become to realize that even though Thrasymachus might portray himself as a wise and eloquent speaker, he is not as wise as he believes. From this inconsistency, Thrasymachus appears to be more concerned with the articulation in his rhetoric and the defeat of Socrates, than actually contributing to the discussion and actually finding the true meaning of…
- 1498 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays -
Thrasymachus argues for the view that justice is the advantage of the powerful – that it is “simply the interest of the stronger” (Plato’s The Republic, translated by Richard W. Sterling and William C. Scott, page 35). Laws, he says, are specifically “designed to serve the interests of the ruling class” (36). Of course, the ruling class is the strongest class, so it follows that the laws serve the advantage of the strong. The citizens under the ruling class serve “interests [of their strong unjust ruler] and his happiness at the expense of their own” (41). Thrasymachus concludes that “the dynamics of justice, then, consistently operate to advantage the ruler but never the subjects” (41).…
- 626 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The virtue in individuals does not always bring prosperity to the state on the whole. Not everyone is sensitive to the good of the others. Socrates' republic is, in this sense, utopic. Socrates states, "Anyone who intends to practise his craft well never does or orders but his best for himself " (Plato, 23). This belief does not match the modern experience nor does it match the experience of a Greek citizen in Ancient Greece. In reverse, Thrasymachus believes that justice is a means for the strong to exercise advantage. In a sense Thrasymachus associates the strenght of a citizen with his authority and position in the society. He famously states, "Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" (Plato, 14). Justice is a tool for the established order to preserve itself. The strong citizen with a sizeable authority makes use of justice in a manner to assert his private interests. Under the shadow of justice, he can easily practise injustice and impose it as justice to the others. Thats why the strong is in a position to employ justice and injustice at their own interest. For instance, since a ruler makes laws in a position to twist justice for his own benefit. Therefore, his prior concern is to preserve and enhance his own authority. In order to do that, he ignores the welfare of his subjects. He does not act always within a moral…
- 1008 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
Tharasymachus' has been listening to the discussion and has been eagerly waiting to interupt, he is convinced that he alone has the answer of what justice is. He states that justice "is in the interest of the stronger party" and its a virtue only intended for the weaker members of a society. According to Thrasymachus, the just man leads a good life because he is fearful of the repercussions of his actions and the unjust man is not fearful of these repercussions because he is stronger and more intelligent than the average citizen. These traits will allow him to avoid social comeback for his unjust actions. Furthermore, the more unjust a man is the stronger he becomes. Thrasymachus finally states that since the unjust man is living outside the law, he will lead a happier and more fruitful life because he is free from the social constraints of society.…
- 397 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
In his writings he has describes two contrasting views of the important issue that is ultimately asking the question, why be moral? Plato and Thrasymachus represent the different and some-what opposing ideas on this topic of morality and self interest. Thrasymachus believes that the right thing to do is act unjustly or unmorally because one should always proceed to act in one's own self interest. He states, "Why should I be moral when it is not in my interest to be so?" This is called egoism proper. In his mind the perfect life would be to have a great reputation for living in perfect justice while being completely unjust. This would constitute a life of benefits, pleasure and rewards of injustices while still maintaining the reflection of a good…
- 678 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Plato, in his book “Republic”, focused on justices and further on argues that, with his beliefs about the soul, that there is a virtue connected to such part of the soul. These different parts of the soul, are called imperative and it is divided into three parts, with a virtue connected to it. These virtues are the cardinal virtues; thus reason and wisdom are one, the human spirit performing well is paired with courage and destiny which is paired with temperance or otherwise known as moderation (self-control). If we have all these virtues we can obtain justice, the fourth virtue. According to Plato, justice is an important virtue because it balances out the interrelationship between the parts of the soul. There is justice when reason rules over spirit and desires.…
- 580 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays