This paper examines the major theories of justice presented in Plato's Republic, focusing on the contrasting views of Cephalus, Thrasymachus, and Socrates. Cephalus defines justice as truth-telling and reciprocity, while Thrasymachus argues that justice is simply the interest of the stronger. Both positions are critiqued through the Socratic lens, which holds that justice is a virtue aimed at the common good. The paper evaluates these philosophical positions with reference to real-world examples, including minimum wage legislation and the American jury system, ultimately arguing that justice must be constructive, impartial, and oriented toward wisdom rather than power or mere repayment.
Philosophers and thinkers have proposed many theories of justice, and while some appear to be based on sound premises, others completely abandon logic. In his book The Republic, Plato introduces us to various viewpoints on justice, concluding with Socrates' own philosophy. The prevalent views of justice in Plato's day were offered by Cephalus and Thrasymachus, both of which Socrates ultimately refutes in favor of a conception of justice grounded in virtue and the common good.
One prevailing view of justice in Plato's time was introduced by Cephalus. He believed that justice meant always telling the truth and repaying what one has been given. Repaying what is given is, however, a highly ambiguous notion that demands close analysis. If one always repaid what he or she was given, would that necessarily constitute justice? For example, if a friend does me a favor and I repay it, that is certainly a just act. Similarly, if a friend hurts me or betrays me, repaying that harm in kind might also be called justice by this standard. So far, the logic seems to hold — but justice is a virtue, and as such it should be positive in nature. Hurting someone back does not truly make sense, because it violates the principles of friendship. Would it not be better to forgive a friend and thus restore the relationship?
Socrates discredited this idea, saying:
"I should be sorry to doubt the word of such a wise and inspired man, but his meaning, though probably clear to you, is the reverse of clear to me. For he certainly does not mean, as we were now saying, that I ought to return a deposit of arms or of anything else to one who asks for it when he is not in his right senses; and yet a deposit cannot be denied to be a debt."
Thus, while Cephalus' philosophy has a surface logic, it betrays the very essence of justice.
Thrasymachus proposed another theory of justice. According to him, justice was the law of the stronger — laws must always be formulated to protect the more powerful. This philosophy is not even based on sound logic, and its very premise is flawed. It must be made clear that it is the weak who need the protection of the law; stronger or influential people can protect themselves through other means. As Thrasymachus declares: "I proclaim that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger."
This view was severely criticized by Socrates, who maintained that just as a physician studies and labors for the sake of the patient, a government must work in the best interest of its people:
"No physician, in so far as he is a physician, considers his own good in what he prescribes, but the good of his patient; for the true physician is also a ruler having the human body as a subject, and is not a mere money-maker."
One can agree with Socrates here while also acknowledging that stronger parties will always attempt to manipulate the justice system. However, the structure of society and the system of checks and balances is designed to prevent this. Thrasymachus further clarified his position: "The ruler, in so far as he is the ruler, is unerring, and, being unerring, always commands that which is for his own interest; and the subject is required to execute his commands; and therefore, as I said at first and now repeat, justice is the interest of the stronger."
"Socrates counters with justice as collective virtue"
"Democratic justice, jury systems, and flawed reciprocity"
Justice, according to Cephalus, was telling the truth and repaying what one receives. Thrasymachus felt justice was the rule of the stronger. Both these views were harshly discredited by Socrates, whose version of justice was based on lofty principles of wisdom and virtue. Thrasymachus' view is, in fact, a conception of injustice: he argued that people who disregard the welfare of others are happier and more successful — a claim that defies any meaningful definition of justice.
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.