Monica Burnett PHIL2410 Is Thrasymachus an Amoralist?

2/26/2012

Thrasymachus, from Book 1 of Platos Republic is often classified by readers and philosophers alike as an amoralist, a man who is indifferent to moral considerations, as defined by Bernard Williams in The Amoralist (4). But what exactly is amoralism? First, this essay will explain exactly what amoralism is. Then this essay will analyze Thrasymachus arguments on justice, and conclude that Thrasymachus is not an amoralist, but an immoralist. He does take a moral stance on justice, arguing that one ought to act unjustly, in ones own self interest. First this essay will discuss amoralism. While Bernard Williams amoralist often commits acts of injustice, these actions are not dictated by any form of moral obligation. A true amoralist exists outside the moral system (5).The amoralist does not behave immorally or morally because he believes that is what he ought to do. He is indifferent to moral considerations (4). He may act in self-interest or, on occasion, in the interest of others. An amoralist may act morally on occasion, but not because he wants to do what is right. He may have other interests or passions that influence his thought, such as relationships or desire for power, but no general moral considerations. Bernard Williams gives the apt example of the stereotypical hollywood gangster, a ruthless man who kills without flinching, but showers his family with presents. The amoralist may act in other peoples interest from time to time, it all depends on how he feels, Bernard Williams writes (10). The amoralist is capable of thinking in terms of others interests....his failure to be a moral agent lies partially in the fact that he is only intermittently and capriciously disposed to do so (11). Some choose to act morally. Some choose to act immorally. The amoralist takes the third option. He simply chooses not to care, and makes decisions based on other interests.

Monica Burnett PHIL2410 Is Thrasymachus an Amoralist? 2/26/2012

Thrasymachus is often mistaken for an amoralist. They have certain things in common. The amoralist is indifferent to morality. Thrasymachus believes that one cannot act morally and and act in ones self interest. Therefore both parties are apt to engage in immoral acts. However, I intend to argue that when one looks closer at Thrasymachus position, one will realize that Thrasymachus is not an amoralist. He is not indifferent to moral consideration. Rather, he is an amoralist, who believes that what one ought to do is behave immorally. Here is an overview of Thrasymachus position. In his doctrine, Thrasymachus makes three statements about justice: Justice is what is advantageous for the stronger (338c). Justice is obeying laws and Justice is nothing but the advantage of another (339b and 343c). Thrasymachus explains how the second statement follows from the first, and by so legislating, each [of the stronger, the ruler,] declares that what is just for its subjects is what is advantageous for itself (338e). The ruler (the stronger) implements legislation that advantages himself. When laws are created to be advantageous for the stronger, then it follows that the subjects who obey laws are behaving in a manner that is advantageous for the stronger. For the weaker party, the three statements are cohesive. One could even argue that, for the subjects, they are essentially the same thing. When the weaker party obeys the laws of the stronger party, he is advantaging another, and doing what is advantageous for another. For the weaker party, the advantage of the stronger and the advantage of another is one and the same. For any man other than the ruler, even if he is the second strongest man in the city, this reasoning still applies. The second strongest man is comparatively stronger than nearly everyone. The relationship between this man and the majority of people he knows is that he is the stronger and they are the weaker. However, because there is still a man stronger than

Monica Burnett PHIL2410 Is Thrasymachus an Amoralist? 2/26/2012

himself, the ruler, if justice is the advantage of the stronger, to behave justly the second strongest man must act in a manner that advantages the ruler. Because the second strongest man is still subordinating his interest to that of a stronger party, although he is comparatively stronger to most, he is still advantaging another and not himself. Thrasymachus three statements, that justice is the advantage of the stronger, the advantage of others and the following of laws (put in place by the ruler, the strongest) are consistent with each other. In one of Thrasymachus speech he states that it is always much more advantageous for the individual to be unjust than just (344a) According to Thrasymachus three statements this would be necessarily true for everyone but the ruler. Behaving in a just manner is never advantageous because it entails benefiting someone stronger than ones self. One would never be able benefit oneself by acting in ones own self interest. This can help us clarify Thrasymachus speech in which he praises extreme justice highly as a method for the man of great power who does better to become more powerful (343b-344d). As a strong unjust man, it is possible to gain power and do better because one is able to pursue that which would advantage oneself. A just man could not. Initially the reader may be confused as to why the actions this stronger man takes to become even more powerful are referred to as unjust actions. When thought of in terms of the stronger party, it may seem perplexing that this man, who is acting in his self-interest, could be considered unjust. If justice is what is advancing the stronger, and this man, as the stronger, is advancing himself, then according to Thrasymachus doctrine his actions would seem to be just. But Thrasymachus describes them as unjust. Did Plato intentionally write Thrasymachus as a confused character, whose position is not completely thought out? No. Justice is the same for this man and for every

Monica Burnett PHIL2410 Is Thrasymachus an Amoralist? 2/26/2012

other man who is not the ruler as it is for the weaker. Even though this man may be very powerful, because there is a ruler stronger than him, justice is still the advantage of another. The type of injustice that Thrasymachus is praising is injustice which will transform the weaker into the strongest. He does not praise those who are punished and greatly reproached for part of injustice such as temple robbers, kidnappers, robbers and thieves (344c). The sort I mean is tyranny, Thrasymachus states (344a). Thrasymachus praises the form of injustice which is capable of turning a strong man into the strongest, the sort which makes those who do injustice the happiest (344a). This type of injustice is stronger, freer and more masterful than justice, because the tyrant may appropriate others possessions...,enslave the possessors and still be called happy and blessed (344b). It is only the type of injustice which is caught or unambitious that is punished and greatly reproached (344b). If this strong man is successful in becoming the strongest, it is much more difficult to classify him as unjust or just with Thrasymachus doctrine. For the strongest, there appears to be an inherent conflict between the statements, justice is the advantage of the stronger, and justice is nothing but the advantage of another. These statements entail two entirely different sets of actions. For the strongest, the ruler, the advantage for the stronger must now translate to the advantage of oneself, because there is no one stronger to advantage. However, this directly conflicts with Thrasymachus other statement, that justice is the advantage of another. Thrasymachus specifically states that justice is nothing but the advantage of another, implying that to be just, an individual must behave in a manner that only benefits others. The ruler cannot act in a manner that benefits only others and himself. Because of this contradiction, for Thrasymachus doctrine to remain coherent in the case of the ruler, there are two options. One could disregard one of the statements, such as justice is nothing but the advantage of another.

Monica Burnett PHIL2410 Is Thrasymachus an Amoralist? 2/26/2012

For the ruler, justice would only be the advantage of the stronger. This would fit within Thrasymachus argument. The other option is that, perhaps the ruler can never be just, because it is impossible to only advantage another and advantage oneself at the same time. Every action the ruler would take would be simultaneously just and unjust, and therefore neither. Throughout Thrasymachus argument, a careful reader will notice that Thrasymachus never calls a ruler just or unjust. He only says the ruler legislates what is just for its subjects. The ruler never behaves in a manner or legislates in a way that Thrasymachus describes as just for itself (338e). Either way, in Thrasymachus argument it has become morally advantageous for a man to behave in the complete manner of injustice which will turn him into the ruler. If behaving justly for a ruler entails acting in ones own self interest, then he no longer the chore of benefitting another and is still considered just. If we pursue the other option, in which a ruler cannot behave justly or unjustly, then he is above moral judgement. It is in this manner that Thrasymachus thinks of justice as virtuous. When Socrates asks if Thrasymachus considers justice a virtue and injustice a vice, Thrasymachus responds the opposite (348c). Justice is wise and good because through complete injustice, a man can, bring cities and nations under [his] power (348d). Complete injustice is not only more profitable, but when completed to its full extent, it leads to a position in which one, through self-interested actions, is either always just or cannot be considered unjust. Thrasymachus is not an amoralist, a man who is morally indifferent. The amoralist does not follow any moral rules. Thrasymachus, however, advocates immorality. He believes one should always act in ones self interest, whether a subject or a ruler. For the subject, the virtue of complete injustice will result in a state in which a man acting in self interest is either just or above moral judgement.