Republic Assignment 3/20

Due Tuesday, 3/20 Republic Assignment
Read The Republic pp. 15-29 (that’s 14 pages)

1. Notice that our reading on Thrasymachus is divided into two parts. The first part is entitled – “First Statement and Criticisms”. In this first part, what are Socrates’ main argument(s) against the idea that justice is whatever the strong (i.e. the government) says it is?

Well, from what I understood, Thrasymachus was saying that it is up to the leader to define justice, or whatever the leader tells you, that us justice. Socrates comes back at him by saying that what if the leader makes a mistake while giving an order? What if he makes a decision that will benefit the leader, but not the people, is that still justice?

2. In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?

Thrasymachus' two main points are that "justice is the interest of the stronger party" and that "injustice is the interest and profit of oneself." Socrates points were that "no one really wants authority and with it the job of righting other people's wrongs, unless paid for it" and "all wise men would prefer the benefit of this service at the hands of others rather than the labor of affording it to others themselves."

3. In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?

I honestly think it depends on the situation. If harming someone is being used as a self defense is completely different if you were hurting someone for no reason; not enough of a good reason. Also if harming this person is the best for the majority of the people, there could be some exceptions. Basically, by using your common sence you can desyfer whether harming someone could be along the lines of being "right" or flat out, morally "wrong." It all revolves around opinions.