A game-theory solution to the inconsistency between Thrasymachus and Glaucon in Plato's "Republic"
In Book I of Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus contends two major claims: (i) justice is the advantage of the stronger, and (ii) 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...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Print Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Peeters
[2016]
|
| In: |
Ethical perspectives
Year: 2016, Volume: 23, Issue: 3, Pages: 383-410 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Plato 427 BC-347 BC, Res publica
/ Justice
/ Game theory
|
| IxTheo Classification: | NCA Ethics VA Philosophy |
| Summary: | In Book I of Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus contends two major claims: (i) justice is the advantage of the stronger, and (ii) 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 he is supposed to be representing Thrasymachus' original claims in a better way. In the present article, I provide two solutions to this puzzle with the help of elementary game theory. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1370-0049 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Ethical perspectives
|