The Republic of Plato: The Debate

Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, Cleitophon, and Socrates’ heated debate over the nature of justice in Book 1 of The Republic of Plato comes to an intriguing point of argument wherein both parties go back and forth over justice being the “advantage of the stronger”(15). It is clear that Socrates presents a more sound and logical counterargument as he calls upon the duties and abilities of professionals in their fields and how they benefit not only themselves but humanity at large as well. His skill in argument serves him well and the clear victor in the debate as the textual evidence is easily observable both in Plato’s presentation of the squabble and in Thrasymachus’ responses.

Thrasymachus begins this debate by claiming, “the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (15). He provides further explanation, while introducing the different ruling groups of cities, where each “sets down laws for its own advantage,” which is he claims is “just for the ruled”. These claims are clearly presented in spite, following Thrasymachus’ gross criticizing of Socrates’ method of argument, while referring to him “disgusting” (16). Socrates grants “that the just is something of advantage,” he questions whether it is necessarily the

advantage of “the stronger” (16). He goes on to prove that the just is not solely of advantage to the strong and powerful, but can also be a disadvantage to them; an advantage to the weaker. Thrasymachus to concede that rulers can set down laws incorrectly, rendering it disadvantageous to them, and that the ruled class carrying out what is set down by the rulers. Socrates then concludes: “according to [Thrasymachus’] argument, its just to do not only what is advantageous for the stronger but also the oppo...

... middle of paper ...

...the best for what it has been sent over” (21). This distinction in the art of the shepherd, like all the other distinctions and corrections Socrates has made in response to Thrasymachus’ argument, proves that the art, in this case sheep-herding, is mutually advantageous to both the shepherd and the sheep, and that nature of the art renders it just.

It is clear that Socrates had the upper hand in the argument over justice and advantage throughout the seemingly heated debate. His logical conclusions extending from Thrasymachus’ own argument, adequately dismantles his opponents belief of the nature of justice. Both Plato’s description of the flow of the argument, and Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cleitophon’s reactions to Socrates’ words serve as ample evidence that Socrates’ definition of justice is far more convincing and well-argued than that of his opponents.