Thrasymachus Vs. Glaucon

Looking up in the Merriam Webster dictionary justice is defined as "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments". The fact that the word itself is being used for its definition explains how ambiguous the concept of justice can get. It is because of the very same reason that some time between the years of 470 to 399 BC a very well-known argument took place in Piraeus. The mentioned years are the time period that Socrates lived, the argument evolves mainly on the concept of justice and the goal is to come to an operational account for it. Throughout this argument lots of accounts are given by different participants, which all get opposed by Socrates. Two of these contributors are Thrasymachus and Glaucon. The former argues that "justice is the advantage of the stronger" while the latter argues that justice is not something practiced for its own sake (intrinsic good) but something one engages in out of fear of its consequences (extrinsic good). As seen in book one and two of Republic, Plato's Socrates conquers both arguments. If both arguments are looked at very closely one will come to the belief that none of the arguments state anything that harmonizes with humans' virtue. Nonetheless they act as an aid for Socrates to elaborate on his account of justice.

At the end of book one after two of the accounts offered have been defeated Thrasymachus joins in and contributes his vigorous opinion. Thrasymachus is a sophist who attacks Socrates at the beginning of his appearance. When we analyze his argument and his general way of carrying himself in debate, we can fully see the arrogance in his character. Thrasymachus ends his participation in the conversation by meanly congratulating Socrates on his "victory," and telling Socrates to "feast on his triumph" as if the argument on defining justice is some type of contest. His argument, the question of following the stronger, and the question of what justice is, might finally make sense, if we allow him to wrongfully mix two concepts of right and might. This is to say that Thrasymachus believes the mightier one gets the righter they are and the more just it is to follow them.

In the course of arguing to his conclusion that, "injustice when it comes into being on a sufficient scale, is mightier, freer, and more masterful than justice" (Republic, 344 c) he made three fundamental assumptions. First was that "justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" (Republic, 338 c). His second assumption is that justice equals the obedience of laws (Republic, 338 e). As a final point he asserts that "justice and the just are really someone else's good" (Republic, 343 c). A very intriguing question that arises at this point is how could a person with such pride ever follow a set of rules assigned by a stronger body? And furthermore not only that these rules do not benefit him but they are done in another ones' benefit? These questions I believe can be answered only if the assumptions are taken into account one at a time. At first we only look at Thrasymachus' first assumption as the central element of his perception of justice. If this is the case then it could be argued that Thrasymachus is a believer of nature's law that stronger rules over the weaker, just the way a forest is being run. This would eventually give any strong one the right to take over all the ones below him not considering if he deserves the power or the fact that this person has the capacity of ruling. If the second assumption is taken into account as the central one then it is fair to say that Thrasymachus believes in strict, literal loyalty to the law or to a particular code, as of religion or morality. Furthermore it could be said that he is a follower of the existing laws. Hence the laws are said to be flawless and require no modification or change throughout time, which cannot be true. At last if the reader takes the last supposition as the main one, it gives the reader the impression that Thrasymachus belongs to the group who is a decent self-centered person who emphasizes that it is justice for everyone to do things in the interest of others. In other words Thrasymachus would be an ethical thinker rather than a political thinker. Moreover this cannot be the case because it causes contradiction with him being a sophist, who is an instructor of speech and politics. As a result no matter how this argument is looked at, it causes some sort of contradiction and therefore, the elimination of Thrasymachus' account.

After Socrates has eliminated Thrasymachus' supposition still not everyone is satisfied

...