In the passage, Thrasymachus defines what justice means in his opinion. He argues that justice is nothing else but the interest of the stronger. He went on to argued that the stronger, or “ruler,” of subjects benefits most from justice and that the most unjust rulers are the happiest because of their willingness to use injustice to their advantage. The weaker, or “subjects,” are weak because of their unwillingness to perform injustice and are just in being commanded by the ruler. Socrates disagrees with Thrasymachus’ and counters by saying that leader, or the art of ruling, benefit the weaker. During the entire argument, Thrasymachus believes he ‘winning’ the debate. In reality, Socrates is asking questions and dissecting Thrasymachus’ answers to not only have a full understanding of what Thrasymachus’ definition of Justice is but to clearly state to him why his interpretation is wrong/has flaws. I believe when Socrates begins asking “Is the physician, taken in that strict sense of which you are speaking, a healer of the sick or a maker of money?” that this is the point in which the tides turn in Socrates favor.
It might be the case that Thrasymachus considerably twisted himself in the form of opposite position when he argued that justice is meant for the interest of the stronger individuals within a given setting and at the same time state that justice is exercised via the power of persons who are in authority. This only points towards the direction that those in authority are stronger hence determine what is right and wrong and the weaker individuals are there to obey the rules which according to his is justice. According to Socrates, it is not justice that when a person follows the laws formed by those with power to serve their interest. There is an instance when these leaders become tempted to pass certain bad laws because it does not satisfy the interests of these rulers.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Thrasymachus rulers can never make any mistake and that they are always right. Socrates starts his argument refuting the notion and the position held by Thrasymachus by pointing out the fact that the society’s rulers often engages in certain activities that are wrong implying that they too make mistakes. In most occasions, when the community’s leaders make any form of error, they tend to act in a manner believed not to be in their self-interest. It clearly points one of the primary problem presented in Thrasymachus argument. He holds onto to the notion that it is essential for people to obey the established laws and the rulers elected to rule over them however these leaders at same times make certain rules that are not necessarily in their interest.
According to Thrasymachus injustice seem to be more powerful compared to justice, but this was refuted by Socrates who argued that it is utterly unjust for one city to rise against another town, but in case this happens should the city that strengthens do so using the help of injustice or justice? It seems to be a difficult question, but according to Thrasymachus, a city would need the help of injustice. However, Socrates sharply rebuked him stating that in a situation where the group wishes to be successful in the long run then there was the need to eliminate any form of unjust since they might end up being at odd with one another. It seems right, and reasonably because to be successful; individuals would need each other hence the need to be just to strengthen their relationship. When a group engages in contents injustices, it will imply that cooperation might not be attained. Individually, the guilty feeling would continue to haunt an individual hence preventing him or her from undertaking a constructive act. Based on this argument it is clear that Socrates won the debate over Thrasymachus.
Lastly, the two engaged in a discussion revolving around the best type of life that an individual should live. The central question posed by Socrates was whether some things have particular functions that are particular to that something. The aspect might be clearly understood clearly by asking whether it is only the eye that has the function of sight. According to Thrasymachus, he believed that the role of something is what it alone can do and can perform it better. The question was stretched further to focus on whether each thing has a virtue and a function, for instance, something that makes the eyes to work properly of which Thrasymachus agreed. Thrasymachus further confirmed that if this argument is be applied to the soul, then it would imply that the soul has a function that it performs efficiently. Socrates then summarized the statement arguing that, because the soul’s virtue is justice and the vice, injustice, then a just individual would have new virtuous souls and thus able to live happier compared to a miserable and unjust person. Clearly, this is the argument held by Thrasymachus because to Socrates; justice is highly profitable which is compared to the soul than the injustice.
In conclusion, Socrates started to take control of the argument when Thrasymachus failed to support his argument with solid reasoning. He held the concept that the unjust things are often bad for the soul while the just things are good. Therefore, it can be said that Socrates controlled the argument with explanations based on facts.
