Socrates 'Thrasymachus' View Of Justice

Thrasymachus thinks that justice is characterized by self interest. Justice is the interest of the stronger party, that is to say might is right. Injustice pays more than justice, those who practice justice are simpletons and kind of weaklings. Human behaviour is and should be guided by self interest. Right is the interest of the stronger party .Thus the ruling class is found to oblige their subjects to behave in a particular way that will suit their interests. Justice indeed to him is the loss of the subject and gain of the ruler and stronger party. He speaks more in favour of injustice which is beneficial than justice.

Injustice does not only pay at the level of pick pocketing but pays more at the level of the state where rulers

swindle and plunder the wealth of nations while enslaving the subjects as in the case of tyrannical rulers, he says “. I am speaking, as before, of injustice on a large scale in which the advantage of the unjust is more apparent; and my meaning will be most clearly seen if we turn to that highest form of injustice in which the criminal is the happiest of men, and the sufferers or those who refuse to do injustice are the most miserable --that is to say tyranny, which by fraud and force takes away the property of others, not little by little but wholesale;” Thrasymachus thinks that practising injustice on a higher scale is more profitable than on a lower scale where one could be detected and punished for so little gain. Injustice on a larger scale brings about happiest of men while those who suffer it are the most miserable.
The unjust is lord over the truly simple and just person. The just is always the looser when he enters into private contract with the just, and even more so when both are dealing with the state in matters of taxation. The unjust man is even hated by his friends and relations because he refuses to serve them in an unlawful manner while the unjust is loved because he illegally serves his friends and relations and can sacrifice lavishly even to the gods and appease them to his advantage.
Unjust men are not only called happy by their peers but also regarded as the most blessed for the rewards of injustice. To him men censure injustice for the simple fact that they fear becoming victims of it not because they shun committing it.
Socrates counter Thrasymachus’ picture of (in)justice by putting in that what may be right and just for one person might not necessary be for another for instance eating beef might be conducive and right to the body of Pancratiast who is stronger, but not for us who are weaker.

Socrates agrees with justice as interest but finds fault when his interlocutor says it’s the interest of the stronger party; Socrates thinks that rulers don’t always command things that are to their interest, at times they mistake their interest and take decisions that are injurious o their interest. Therefore justice ceases to be the interest of the stronger from the moment Thrasymachus agrees that subjects are at times commanded to do things which are not in favour of the rulers (however mistakenly). Socrates further counters that justice is the reverse, it is when rulers rule for interest of their subjects and not the other way round. To him, a an ideal state cannot be built on injustice and to the interest of the rulers. Rather, an ideal state is one that is ruled to the interest of the subjects. True forms of government should attend to the interests of the weaker and not the stronger and superior parties. Rulers are paid in money, honour or penalty for refusing because they are supposed to work for the interest of others they rule not their own, that’s the reason they are compensated in any of these three ways because no one would rule without compensation since true rulership is

the interest of the ruled.
Glaucon thinks that Justice does not have a natural origin but is based on covenant and conventions or agreements.

He agrees with Thrasymachus that justice is self interest and that men behave justly because of their inability to behave unjustly, they also behave justly because they fear the consequences of being punished by law. If they could have the ability to evade consequences of injustice by law, they would behave unjustly for it is more beneficial. It is to illustrate his point that he brings about the myth of Gyges who acquired a magical and mysterious ring from the crack of the earth after an earth quake. This ring enabled him to evade being detected in an unjust action against his master, but it also gave him the opportunity enjoy the befits of an unjust action ie entering the inner courts unnoticed, seducing the queen and conniving with her to murder and overthrow the

King.
Glaucon uses this to show us that, given the opportunity and freedom to do as they wish, the just and the unjust man would both go the same unjust path. Injustice becomes interest and more advantageous than Justice.
Our intuition about “ invisibility” and moral badness is that both are related, the one leads to the other. When men are undetected and invisible to eyes of the law, they are tilted towards moral badness or injustice. This is so because invisibility gives them the freedom to evade punishment of the law and by so escaping they get things done to their interest and not that of the rulers.
The picture of justice I side with is that Socrates tried to paint. That is to say justice is the interest of the weaker parties, the subjects and not the rulers. Rulers may rule for their interests but this is not what it should be, rather it should be for the interest of the masses. I take sides with this view because contemporary societies are making efforts towards a better form of democracy. Though Plato never thought democracy as a good form of government, today is no longer the case because any form of government whose power does not come from the subjects especially majority of the subjects, may not stand the test of time. Therefore I take sides with the idea that Justice should be the interst of the subjects or masses and not that of the stronger ruler. A society cannot be built on injustice even if it appears to pay. Tyranny which Thrasymachus claims is the most paying form of injustice is certainly disgustful in contemporary global world and such governments have often meet with concerted resistance and overthrow to ensure that the interest of the masses are protected..
The character that gives our best motivations for doing good or virtuose things is Glaucon. He is more realistic and resembles Thrasymachus who talks about what is happening in most societies and not what should be ideal. In fact without conventional laws men would be naturally vicious. The consequences of punishment is what motivates them to be virtuose, you can imagine what would happen in the absence of the penal code in most societies, the result would be terrific. The clear proof is when man is given the freedom to go undetected by the law, he becomes bad, therefore we are motivated by fear of punishment, to do good or just acts. Although he calls justice sublime simplicity and injustice as discretion, his view of human motivations to do good is so true to life and realistic, such that this view of Glaucon to me appears to be the best motivation why people do good or virtuos acts.