Thrasymachus On Justice

Thrasymachus’s theory the justice is the advantage of the stronger is more practical than Socrates and Polemarchus’s positions that helping the good and harming no one is. My justification for Tharasymachu’s theory being more practical is based on the notion that people in power tend to want to stay in power, and people who are not in power want to become more powerful by a substantial amount. With that being said, Tharasymachu’s position works because the people in power tended to pass laws and policies reflecting that said desire of keeping themselves in power. Tharasymachu’s position isn’t necessarily moral in my opinion, but there is strong evidence to support that the notion of justice of one generation has been seen as injustice by the

next generation because the decisions of the prior have been deemed selfish and/or unjust(as well as many other factors). To make this more relevant to a more modern time, we can take a look at the issue of slavery within the United States.

One can argue that since the slave owners of the South viewed the slaves more as property, that they were just for chasing down the slaves in order to regain their property. The Southerners in power during that time found that notion of slaves being property just, whereas now most of us look at slavery and that notion of justice being in fact unjust towards the people in slavery at that time. The same analogical principle can be used for many social and economic issues that the world currently faces. What’s practical and what is deemed by most to be moral are usually not acted upon simultaneously. For example, a utopian type of society where everyone has enough food to eat, enough water to drink, and are able to have all of their desires fulfilled may be seen as a mostly moral society by some, but is it practical in the modern era, or especially in the time of this discussion among these historical characters occurring ? I would argue that it is not obtainable nor is it sustainable due party to humanities’ independent, diverse desires and

greed.

In my opinion, I believe that Socrates and Polemarchus’s positions on justice are more moral and idealistic than Tharasymachu’s position, but not obtainable as of now nor in the prior history of societies around the world.

Socrates and Polemarchu’s positions are close to Jesus’s position of love and pray for one’s enemies, whereas as a Christian I have to admit can be tough at times.Treating one's enemies kind like Socrates and Polemarchus advocate for in order to be just is often as equally difficult or not more then, more than it is now.The reason as to why being kind is more moral, but not as practical is because harming sometimes continues the cycle of revenge, as they will harm one back. If one is kind to his/her friends and enemies alike, one may have a shot at not having continuous vengeance acted upon oneself. With that being said, a tremendous amount of pain in the days of these men and in the days of now are caused by the revengeful tendencies of people and many people still engage in the act of vengeance. The people who are in power are of no exception to that statement.The power holders in a society can often create their own sense of justice enforce that sense upon others or try to infiltrate social norms through various sources in order to create what is seen as just in a society, but it has the potential to favor the policy makers themselves. To sum it up: what is practical for a society to engage in often differs than what is moral. What is seen as just to

one person, may seem as an injustice to another, depending on their position within a society, and with what is deemed just often determined by the most powerful in society, what is practical in order to survive in the world may not be deemed the most moral route. Practicability for oneself and injustice can go hand in hand, but what is moral and practical can also go hand in hand. All in all, I believe that Socrates and Polemarchu’s position on justice is the most idealistic of the two conclusions also, in my opinion, I believe that it is also the best moral compass to follow when compared to Thrasymachu’s conclusion. Thrasymachu’s position is the more practical out of the two standpoints depending on the system (policies, laws, etc) that are in place, but that does not necessarily mean that his position is the most moral. To paraphrase the economist website on the issue of overfishing in the oceans; ‘don’t blame the fishermen, they are doing what they always have done.’ Basically, it may be immoral to fish all of the oceans out of easily editable fish, but the system that the fishermen follow have yet to deem it unjust and thereby making it illegal, nor have they helped the fishermen change their methods of catching fish from the oceans; therefore, it is more practical for the fishermen to continue fishing the way that they have always done(to get the most fish at all costs in order to compete and survive in the industry), but are keeping those methods that are depleting our fishing sources the most moral to the rest of civilization, even enemies? Probably not. If a soldier is shot at by an enemy soldier and he decides to shoot the enemy soldier in the leg instead of the head in order to injure him but not kill him, I would consider it being kind to your enemy and practical, but that is rather a subjective analysis of the hypothetical situation. I conclude that Socrates, Polemarchu, and Thrasymachu can all be correct and valid on their positions, but the context on the practicality of the situation combined with the moral code of being kind to your enemies are just as important as the positions themselves, and it is dependent of individual situations and circumstances as to what is moral(what is considered being kind for the given situation) and what is practical.