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

Ethical Perspectives 23 (2):383-410 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Author's Profile

Hun Chung
Waseda University

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-08-13

Downloads
559 (#31,189)

6 months
73 (#69,646)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?