The Republic: Socrate Vs. Thrasymachus

Thrasymachus defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. In other words, justice is what benefits the rulers and is advocated by the laws they have set within their state. He believes that in any state, whether it be a monarchy, aristocracy, democracy or a tyranny, justice is not necessarily beneficial to the ruled, but only to the ones who are in rule. Furthermore, he states that true justice is not profitable to the one who is just and does just deeds but is not recognized for it. He believes injustice is far more profitable, especially in cases where injustice is done in disguise of justice. According to him, a clever man is one who can do injustice without paying penalty but reaping in its benefits.

This definition of justice is not in accord with Socrates', who refutes it with much discontent by Thrasymachus. He is accused of being a sycophant in addition to not being capable of answering anything but only to provide refutations to any opinion mentioned before him (336c). Thrasymachus is begged not to leave the conversation and to stay and discuss what he has just revealed to come to conclusion as to what justice really entails.

To discuss what Thrasymachus first defines justice as, Socrates points out that rulers of any city are fallible and can make mistakes (339c). Hence, in any case, there is a chance of a certain ruler of a certain state to, unknowingly, set down laws which are, in fact, not advantageous to them. This contradicts Thrasymachus' argument that Ð''justice' is a tool for the ruler's own benefit. To counter Socrates' assertion, Thrasymarchus in anger, adjusts his theory to add the fact that rulers do not make mistakes (340e).

Socrates leaves that argument to discuss other aspects of Thrasymachus's statement. Socrates uses the analogy of the arts (art of medicine, or the art of sailing) to describe the Ð''art' of ruling. He explains that in each of these arts, the advantage of the art is to the benefactor of the art, not to the artist (341e). The artist is the money maker and that, to Socrates, is the supplementary art. However, for any ruler to succeed at the art of ruling, he must therefore look for the advantage of the ruled, the citizens of the state, just as a doctor looks to benefit the body he is to cure (342d). Therefore the aim of every art is to ensure the well- being of its material.

Thrasymarchus is further discontented at having been proved otherwise a second time by Socrates. He attempts to save his argument by saying that people are not so that they will always look for the advantage of other as they not unselfish. He uses the analogy of the shepherd who does not, in reality, work for the benefit of the sheep, but instead his own, and his ruler's, i.e. the farmer (343b). To this, Socrates later provides a very ambiguous argument referring back to the art of medicine and thus the art of ruling. Here, he mentions the art of wage-earning as a supplementary thing that is common to all arts that earn wages (346b). He is therefore trying to prove that wage-earning for a ruler is not the primary art he undertakes so he must still look for the benefit of the ruled in order to gain any benefit for himself.

Socrates continues to back up his argument by saying that there cannot be a ruler who is willing to rule without earning wages (347a) or honour, and so to not be named a thief or tyrant, he must be adept at his art of ruling, further proof to the point that a ruler must make laws to benefit the ruled. A just man would not necessarily rule unless he sees no one more fit than he, and if he were to rule, he would do so justly.

Thrasymachus had also revealed his thoughts in the comparison of justice and injustice. He states that for any clever man, it is far more profitable to do injustice and if two men, one just and the other one unjust, were to make contracts, the unjust would benefit and leave the just man with nothing (343d). Socrates again provides us with an ambiguous counter-argument to this notion, which is later questioned once more by Glaucon and Adeimentus at the beginning of Book II; To answer Thrasymarchus, he compares justice and injustice to art and lack of an art, coming to conclusion that justice involves knowledge and wisdom and injustice a lack of it, implying that the unjust man is an ignorant one (350a-351b).

Thrasymarchus is not satisfied with the arguments Socrates has laid out before him, and is yet to be persuaded. Socrates now mentions a city of unjust men, who act unjustly towards one another. He states that this city of men,