Rousseau's Argument Against Thrasymachus Essay

What is Rousseau's argument against Thrasymachus? What, in particular, does Rousseau think Thrasymachus gets wrong?
Rousseau’s argument against Thrasymachus is that being the strongest means having the right to be in control; however, for him, being the strongest is not really a right. Rousseau argued that the strongest could have their “right” (that is, strength) and transform it to be their right, which they can use to their own advantage against other people. Nevertheless, men are born with inalienable rights (such as liberty) that cannot be taken away from them except by force. But how about “obedience into duty”? Is it always the case that when one obeys, he is performing what he should do? Then, by extension, the strongest is his own slave, despite having slaves other than his own self.
Rousseau also tried to refute what Thrasymachus might consider force being equal with physical power and its effect on the will. With force, no person is acting out of duty, but out of coercion, which opposes the will. But is it ever so to defy a greater force and still be exempted from punishment? If that is the case, disobedience could be thought as legitimate. If the strongest can use force and disobedience to make themselves right, there is no reason why they should not only aspire to become much stronger than ever before. In particular, Rousseau thought that Thrasymachus got it messed up when the latter equated right with force, such that when force fails, how can then force be ever a right. Thus, right being tantamount to force is purely nonsense, that is, for Rousseau.
Inferably, Rousseau admitted that only legitimate powers ought to be obeyed. But what is legitimate power? Where does it come from? If it all comes from God, how can w...

... middle of paper ...

...free as before” even when they are subject to the State.
In view of the legitimate and illegitimate governments, power could corrupt. Initially, legitimate government exists because the majority has the motive that it should be so. However, when those in power advance their interest more than the collective, they turn out bad. This is because if they become illegitimate, it is because they breach the general will with their own will. It is their self-interested will other than the ones they serve that make them corrupt. They use the general will to advance their own interest because they already hold power – and being blind by it, strive to have more power for their own advantages. Thus, for Rousseau, it is never wrong to revolt against illegitimate governments when the general will is no longer in force because corrupt individuals have turned it for their own use.