Socrates and Thrasymachus’ Conception on Justice
In Friedrich Nietzsche’s work, The Genealogy of Morality, he states that the existence of laws establishes what is just and unjust within a given society (Nietzsche 1280; sec 12). Thus, there does not seem to be anything explicitly virtuous for justice. In reference to the Republic, I will argue Socrates and Thrasymachus have different views on justice and will ultimately disagree with each other on Nietzsche 's conception of justice. Nietzsche’s entire work is trying to dissect morality from its origins. He looks at empirical causes to explain the existence of morality in order to reason why it is the way it is. When analyzing his work, would seem like Nietzsche has a hollow concept of justice. What only every seems to be just is what the current laws that exists advocate for. There does not seems to be anything more or anything less to the statement. There is nothing grandeur to justice because the meaning can change just as easily as …show more content…
Socrates attaches virtue, good, and morality to justice in a way to make it seem like it is good for its own sake. The entire Republic is made to reason why justice is good for its own sake—that there is something intrinsically good about it. Within book I of the Republic, Socrates and Thrasymachus have come to an agreement that there are certain virtues that allow things to work well for the better, a vice being the opposite and causing anything to make something preform for the worse. In the end of book I’s dialogue, both Socrates and Thrasymachus have some to agree that justice is allows a person to be more profitable and live well (Plato, 353c-354b). This is important in the foundation of the Republic. What Socrates is trying explain is that justice can be more than the consequence. It is a good that will make you happier let your soul live well. It is a virtue in allowing to better the
In Friedrich Nietzsche’s work, The Genealogy of Morality, he states that the existence of laws establishes what is just and unjust within a given society (Nietzsche 1280; sec 12). Thus, there does not seem to be anything explicitly virtuous for justice. In reference to the Republic, I will argue Socrates and Thrasymachus have different views on justice and will ultimately disagree with each other on Nietzsche 's conception of justice. Nietzsche’s entire work is trying to dissect morality from its origins. He looks at empirical causes to explain the existence of morality in order to reason why it is the way it is. When analyzing his work, would seem like Nietzsche has a hollow concept of justice. What only every seems to be just is what the current laws that exists advocate for. There does not seems to be anything more or anything less to the statement. There is nothing grandeur to justice because the meaning can change just as easily as …show more content…
Socrates attaches virtue, good, and morality to justice in a way to make it seem like it is good for its own sake. The entire Republic is made to reason why justice is good for its own sake—that there is something intrinsically good about it. Within book I of the Republic, Socrates and Thrasymachus have come to an agreement that there are certain virtues that allow things to work well for the better, a vice being the opposite and causing anything to make something preform for the worse. In the end of book I’s dialogue, both Socrates and Thrasymachus have some to agree that justice is allows a person to be more profitable and live well (Plato, 353c-354b). This is important in the foundation of the Republic. What Socrates is trying explain is that justice can be more than the consequence. It is a good that will make you happier let your soul live well. It is a virtue in allowing to better the