CTI 302 - Republic I-II (Aug 31-Sep 4)

33 concise cards covering all Canvas study questions for Aug 31, Sep 2, and Sep 4. Republic 338e–354c and 357a–369a. Interpretive judgments are marked as discussion points. Source questions: https://utexas.instructure.com/courses/1458104/discussion_topics/5810574 . Text references: https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.2.i.html and https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.3.ii.html

Why is Thrasymachus irritated with Socrates? (Book I)

He thinks Socrates refutes others without offering his own definition, and that the others concede too easily.

What does Thrasymachus mean by justice as the advantage of the stronger? (338e–339a)

The stronger are the ruling authorities. They make laws serving their interests and call obedience to those laws just.

What does Thrasymachus' definition imply about justice and who accepts it?

Justice serves those in power rather than an independent moral standard. Subjects who accept the rulers' laws as just help the rulers at their own expense.

How does Socrates challenge Thrasymachus at 339b?

Rulers can mistakenly command what harms themselves. If obedience is just, justice can disadvantage the stronger, contradicting the definition.

Is Socrates' initial objection valid, and how does Thrasymachus respond?

It works if rulers can err and obedience is always just. Thrasymachus replies that a ruler, strictly considered as an expert, does not err in exercising that expertise.

What is surprising about Socrates' response? What is an alternative objection?

He tests logical consistency instead of directly condemning exploitation. Discussion point: ask why having power should establish what is morally right.

How does Thrasymachus broaden his position at 343b?

Justice becomes another person's good and the just person's loss. He moves from defining justice politically to arguing that successful injustice benefits its practitioner more.

Why does Thrasymachus use shepherds and tyrants as examples?

Shepherds tend sheep for their own or their owners' profit; rulers similarly exploit subjects. The successful tyrant exemplifies injustice bringing maximum power and advantage.

What role does law play in Book I's discussion of justice?

For Thrasymachus, law turns rulers' interests into subjects' obligations. Socrates tests this connection; his account of beneficial ruling does not simply equate justice with legality.

What is Socrates' final criticism of justice as the stronger's advantage? (to 347d)

A craft benefits what it governs: medicine benefits patients, and genuine ruling benefits subjects. The ruler's wages or other incentives are separate from ruling itself.

Why do good people accept rule, according to Socrates?

They chiefly fear the penalty of being ruled by someone worse. In a city of good people, citizens would prefer receiving good government to bearing its burdens.

Does the craft argument decisively refute Thrasymachus?

Discussion point: it challenges his definition, but assumes genuine ruling is a beneficial craft. Thrasymachus can contest that assumption and point to exploitative rulers.

What is Socrates' first argument that justice is good? (348b–351c)

A just person seeks to outdo the unjust but not the just; an expert likewise does not try to exceed another expert's correct standard. Socrates associates justice with wisdom and goodness.

What is a possible weakness in the first argument? (348b–351c)

Discussion point: sharing a pattern with experts does not establish moral goodness. 'Outdoing' someone in taking more may differ from exceeding a correct technical standard.

What is Socrates' second argument that justice is good? (351c–352d)

Injustice produces hatred, conflict, and inability to act together; justice produces cooperation. Even a band of criminals needs some internal justice. Injustice also divides an individual against himself.

How persuasive is the cooperation argument? (351c–352d)

Discussion point: it shows that cooperation and internal order help action. It does not yet prove that cooperating criminals must treat outsiders justly or that complete justice always benefits each person.

What is Socrates' third argument that justice is good? (352d–354a)

Things perform their functions well through their proper virtues. The soul governs and lives; justice is taken as its virtue. A just soul therefore lives well and happily.

What is a possible weakness in the soul-function argument?

Discussion point: it requires a convincing account of the soul's function and proof that justice is its virtue. These premises have not yet been adequately established.

What does Socrates admit at the end of Book I? (354b–c)

They debated justice's virtue and benefits before discovering what justice is. Their conclusions remain provisional; the inquiry exposes problems without delivering a secure definition.

What are the three classes of goods? (357b–d)

Goods valued for themselves, such as harmless enjoyment; goods valued both for themselves and their consequences, such as knowledge; and burdens valued for results, such as unpleasant treatment.

Where do Socrates and popular opinion place justice among goods?

Socrates places it among goods valuable both in themselves and for their consequences. Popular opinion treats it as burdensome, worthwhile for rewards and reputation.

What does Glaucon want Socrates to prove?

That justice itself benefits its possessor, even without a good reputation or rewards. He revives the strongest case for injustice to demand a convincing answer, not to endorse it.

How do Glaucon and Adeimantus differ?

Glaucon tests justice against self-interest and compares extreme lives. Adeimantus examines how parents, teachers, and poets praise justice for external rewards. Both ask what justice itself does to the soul.

Who seems smarter or deeper: Glaucon or Adeimantus?

Interpretive answer: Glaucon is inventive and forceful in constructing the challenge; Adeimantus probes the social roots of hypocrisy. Either judgment needs textual support; there is no single factual ranking.

How does justice originate in Glaucon's account? (358e–359b)

People experience both committing and suffering injustice. Unable to secure the first while escaping the second, they agree not to wrong one another; laws and conventions arise from this compromise.

Why does Glaucon's account of justice's origin matter?

It portrays justice as protection adopted from weakness, between unpunished wrongdoing and helpless victimhood. That challenges whether justice is desirable in itself rather than merely necessary.

How does the Ring of Gyges challenge willing justice? (359c–360d)

Invisibility allows wrongdoing without detection. Glaucon claims both just and unjust people would exploit that freedom, suggesting fear of consequences rather than love of justice motivates obedience.

Is Gyges' ring sufficient evidence that no one is willingly just?

No: it is a thought experiment whose prediction about everyone's conduct needs support. Discussion point: someone could value justice even when wrongdoing would go undetected.

What tension appears in Glaucon's claim that no one is willingly just?

He later imagines a completely just person who stays just despite disgrace and suffering. This strains the universal claim, though the portrait serves a hypothetical test and Glaucon does not endorse the case against justice.

Why give the just person a bad reputation and the unjust person a good one? (360e–361d)

Reversing reputations separates being just from appearing just. It tests justice's own value by removing its rewards and giving those rewards to injustice.

How does Socrates react at 361d, and why?

He compares Glaucon to a sculptor polishing two statues. Glaucon has sharply constructed the perfectly just and unjust characters so their lives can be compared under extreme conditions.

What position does Adeimantus criticize? (362d–367e)

He attacks conventional praise of justice for reputation, wealth, honors, and divine rewards. Such teaching gives people reasons to appear just, without explaining why actually being just benefits the soul.

Why does Adeimantus criticize the poets?

They support reward-based morality, depict injustice as profitable, and portray gods as appeasable through offerings. This encourages the thought that one can profit from injustice and then purchase forgiveness.