A Game-Theoretic Solution to the Inconsistency Between Thrasymachus and Glaucon in Plato’s Republic

Ethical Perspectives 23 (2):383-410 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
In Book 1 of Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus contends two major claims: (1) justice is the advantage of the stronger, and (2) justice is the good of the other, while injustice is to one’s own profit and advantage. In the beginning of Book II, Glaucon self-proclaims that he will be representing Thrasymachus’ claims in a better way, and provides a story of how justice has originated from a state of nature situation. However, Glaucon’s story of the origin of justice has an implication that justice is the advantage of the weak rather than the stronger. This is inconsistent with Thrasymachus’ first claim which states that justice is the advantage of the stronger. This is a problem for Glaucon since Glaucon is supposed to be representing Thrasymachus’ original claims in a better way. In this paper, I provide two solutions to this puzzle with the help of elementary game theory.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
CHUAGS
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-08-13
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Morals by Agreement.Gauthier, David
Plato: Complete Works.Cooper, J. & Hutchinson, D. S.
The Sophistic Movement.Sprague, Rosamond Kent & Kerferd, G. B.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2018-08-13

Total views
127 ( #24,270 of 43,789 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
90 ( #5,997 of 43,789 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.