POLSIS Year 1 Assignment Cover Sheet

UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
School of Government & Society (College of Social Sciences)
Student ID No. (srn):
Programme of study:
Year of study:
Module title:
Module banner code:
Module leader:
Submission date:
Assignment title:

1421535
History and Political Science
One
Classical Political Thought
0820889
Word Count*
2089
Christopher Finlay
Seminar Teacher
Christopher Finlay
8th December 2014
Which (if any) of the three main theories of justice outlined in Platos
Republic those of Thrasymachus, Glaucon (and Adeimantus), or
Socrates do you think is the best one? Why?

Extension:
Extension approved by:

No

date approved:
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 and
polite 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
Admin Note: Marker please
a) highlight or box the grade from the above Grade Mark Steps that this assignment has achieved and
b) insert the same % into the 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 Platos 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 its 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 states 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 Glaucons justice is created only by voluntary
and rational agreement, and a further difference between them is that Glaucons 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. Glaucons 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, Glaucons theory makes no attempt to explain their will to surrender power. This therefore
raises the question, is Glaucons 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 Glaucons theory has confounded
itself, as it is based on rational agreement rather than force, yet a group has resorted to violence,
compromising the others 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 ones 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 theyre forced to, because they regard morality as
something that isnt good for one personally. (Plato and Waterfield, 2008, 360cd) At this stage then,
Glaucons theory fails to satisfy the three criteria, yet still manages to explain why people behave
justly fear of punishment. It appears that Glaucons 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 Platos 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 Glaucons 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 shoemakers shoes. (2013, page
58) The difficulty in assessing Socrates theory is that, rather than observing states or people 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 Glaucons 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 ones soul is in good
condition if it exhibits a certain order among its components, but also that Platos 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 Platos theory.
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 Glaucons 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
peoples ability to harm one another Socrates presents the most convincing argument for justice as
a means to balance ones soul and bring stability, while injustice brings instability.

Bibliography

Kraut, R. (1992) The Defence of Justice in Platos 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 Platos Republic, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell (an

imprint of John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)