Plato the Republic: Analysis of Socrates' Refutation of Thrasymachus's Claim - Essay Example

He argues with Socrates who seems to disagree with this notion. Socrates regards justice as a concept designed to serve all. Thrasymachus’ definition of justice seems to imply that when the stronger rules in his own interests, then he is being unjust. Thrasymachus identifies the stronger with the city’s rulers (Bloom, p. 540). The original argument by Thrasymachus He claims that “the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger (338c). In 339a, he argues that “the just is the same thing everywhere – the advantage of the stronger”.

He equates justice with the advantage of the stronger or ruler, and injustice as an individual’s own advantage. He says “the just is the advantage of the stronger, while the unjust is the profit and advantage of oneself” (344c). Therefore, Thrasymachus’s definition hypothesizes that if a ruler is not pursuing his own interests, then he can be said to be behaving in a just manner. Thrasymachus also makes this claim to justice, that it is obedience to laws (339b). He also says that justice is all about “the advantage of another” (343c).

What Thrasymachus means by his definitions of justice is that justice is corrupted by unjust rulers who act to benefit themselves, or whoever is in power (Bloom, p. 543). Why Socrates disagrees with Thrasymachus Socrates disagrees with Thrasymachus on the basis that what areal ruler is. . Socrates continues to say that for a ruler, the best wage would be not to be governed by individuals worse than themselves (Bloom, p. 604). Socrates also argues that Thrasymachus’s rule is not like real crafts (350c).

He argues that a craftsman does not seek to outdo what other craftsmen are doing, but rather, they perform the tasks that is required by the craft (Devin Stauffer, Plato’s Introduction to the Question of Justice (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001), p. 21. Socrates also defines justice as “virtue and wisdom” and injustice as a “vice and ignorance” (350d). Socrates' definition Vs. Thrasymachus definition of Justice While Thrasymachus believes that justice is in the interest of the stronger, Socrates on the other hand argues that the principle of justice lies on the individuals being served.

Thrasymachus argues that “a ruler, insofar as he is a ruler, never makes errors (341a). He claims hat while one is erring, he cannot be considered stronger or a ruler (Devin Stauffer, Plato’s Introduction to the Question of Justice (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001), p. 34. Bloom says that Thrasymachus’s definition of rulers have to be “selfish with perfect knowledge” (Bloom, p. 329). This means that it is just for the weak to be ruled over by the stronger. Socrates’ arguments are based on the premise sense that a skill or craft is never exercised in the interest of the person who posses the craftsmanship, but in the interest of the individual on whom it is exercised Devin Stauffer, Plato’s Introduction to the Question of Justice (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001), p. 68. Thus Socrates’ definition negates Thrasymachus’ in that he prescribes to the notion that rulers