Thrasymachus Vs Hobbes

The concept of justice has been a crucial factor in determining governments and the structure of society. In this essay I will argue two thinkers, Thrasymachus and Hobbes, as represented in the writings of The Republic, by Plato and Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes divergent ideas on justice.
Thrasymachus’s main argument is that, “Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger” (338c). In other words, Thrasymachus believes justice is advantageous to the stronger because those who behave justly are disadvantaged, and the strong who behave unjustly are advantaged. In his sense injustice is more profitable than justice because it allows people to enjoy benefits they would not obtain if they were to act just.
Hobbes, on the other hand argues that justice is needed for people to live together in civil society. He outlines this idea down to human beings in the

The fool believes that “injustice … may not sometimes stand with that reason… when conduceth to such a benefit...” (90). Hobbes invalidates the fool by arguing that a man who does this will never be accepted into a commonwealth and he will not survive without one. “He which declares he thinks it reason to deceive those that help him can in reason expect no other means of safety…” [91]. Thrasymachus on the other hand promotes the idea of a person who will always be tempted not to follow what is “just” because of the belief that life will be more rewarding if you can get away with being “unjust”. He believes that a “fool” will do as he pleases and reap only the benefits and not the punishment. If Thrasymachus looked at justice in Hobbes’ perspective, he would not see the need to maintain a social contract if a person is able to get away with breaking