Thrasymachus Vs Socrates Justice Analysis

For centuries, people have been asking the question, what is justice? Although justice is not sincerely defined in Plato’s The Republic, both Socrates and Thrasymachus enter into a deep discussion over what justice truly is. After Socrates disproves Cephalus and Polemarchus explanations of justice; Thrasymachus declares that justice is “simply what is in the interest of the stronger party” (338c). Furthermore, he debunks justice altogether, arguing that justice is the strong exploiting the weak and that the unjust lifestyle is better than the just lifestyle. The two elements that this paper will break down is Thrasymachus’s idea of justice and how he thinks that being unjust is better than being just. Initially, Thrasymachus’s sentiment of

As a result, the question forces Thrasymachus to agree that even rulers make mistakes from time to time because nobody is perfect and Socrates says, “When they proceed to make laws, then, they may do the job well or badly. And if they do it well the laws will be in their interest, and if they do it badly they won’t. But their subjects must act according to the laws they make, for that is what “right” is. Then according to your argument it is right not only to do what is in the interest of the stronger party but also the opposite” (339c). Thrasymachus’ previous statement that justice benefits only the stronger party is then contradicted because the stronger party can make a mistake and harm themselves. If that happens, there is really no benefit for the rulers. Hypothetically, since the stronger party makes the laws in their own interest, Socrates questions what happens if the law is wrong. Such as what if the interest of the rulers was for people to murder one another. If the rulers failed in making the correct rules Thrasymachus’ statement would be not work. Thrasymachus’s statement would only make sense if the rulers were perfect and never made mistakes which is impossible. Socrates easily defeats Thrasymachus’s statement by saying nobody’s perfect but Thrasymachus then

What Thrasymachus is trying to say is that the benefits of being unjust outweigh being just. While Socrates does not really offer a formal definition of justice when extinguishing Thrasymachus’ last definition of justice, he does however say that justice is an excellence and injustice a fault. Thrasymachus promptly disagrees with Socrates and believes that it is the total opposite stating that injustice is basically common sense. Socrates criticizes Thrasymachus viewpoint up to now and thinks that Thrasymachus is just saying nonsense by comparing justice to wisdom. Socrates then asks Thrasymachus one simple question and that is, “Will one just man want to get the better of another” (32). Thrasymachus answers no and Socrates then says that an unjust man is not in competition with other unjust people. Socrates disproves Thrasymachus’s idea that the unjust man competes with everybody by making a comparison between how other doctors are not competing against one another but they are doing their profession for their own self benefit. The other element that Socrates attack is that justice is a weakness, the flaw in this argument is revealed when Socrates talks about the thieves not stealing from one another because they would start fighting and ruin themselves. The disunity is evident and it could be concluded