Tharsymachus View of Justice in The Republic - Essay Example

Information April 6, Tharsymachus View of Justice in “The Republic” Philosophy started and developed in ancient Greece. The development and advancement achieved in the field of philosophy by Greeks is amazing. There are many great names in this field but three names standout. All of these three great sages are connected with each other as teacher and student. Socrates was the teacher of Plato and Plato the teacher of Aristotle. Socrates did not write anything. His able student Plato wrote the ideas of Socrates in his famous book “The Republic”. The book starts with the discussion of the effects of old age and how people feel. From this point the discussion moves on to the idea of justice. At first the idea of justice is equated with honesty. This idea is rejected by Socrates on the ground that it is impossible to be just and honest at the same time. The idea is further discussed and Polemarchus states that justice is helping friends and harming enemies but this argument is rejected on the basis that a good person can do no harm to anyone. This definition is partly accepted as it is right to help friends. After rejecting the above mentioned definitions of justice Thrasymachus is very much annoyed. According to him Socrates is not answering any question and only posing questions. This is easy but the real task is to answer the question. Socrates defends his position by stating that since he does not know therefore it is difficult for him to answer and only with the help of learned people like Thrasymachus the answer to the question may be given. Thrasymachus is represented as a Sophist and in typical Sophist’s style he asks for money. Sophists were the first who charged money for education and they were the teachers who used to teach philosophy and rhetoric to young Greeks. Thrasymachus also wants money for his answer as he states that he can answer the question. The whole company along with Socrates pleads Thrasymachus to state the definition of justice and not worry about money. Thrasymachus states that justice is that which serves the interests of the stronger. Socrates finds the definition unclear and therefore he asks questions from Thrasymachus. In order to make the point clear, Thrasymachus states that there are different forms of governments i.e. aristocracy, democracy and tyranny. There are different laws governing these states and in all of them it is just to abide by these laws and unjust to break them. Since laws are made by rulers keeping in view their own interests therefore laws are for the interest of the rulers. From this it is obvious that justice is the interest of the strong. Everyone acts for one’s own benefit and therefore it is natural that strong will act for his own interest. Since government is the strongest of all therefore whatever it makes it will be for the betterment of government. For Thrasymachus here government is equal to strong therefore he believes that justice is the interest of the strong. Superficially this definition seems to be right as whatever a person does it seems just and right to him therefore he is acting in that particular manner but this is very weak and unrealistic approach to define justice. The objection on this argument came from Socrates. He contends that it is possible for rulers to make error therefore it is also possible that the laws made by them may not always be in the favor of strong. Unintentionally the strong can make laws in the interest of weak. This is possible due to faulty thinking of strong. Thrasymachus rejects this by stating that he considers ruler in perfect state. If ruler is making mistake then he is no more ruler. By stating this Thrasymachus again repeats his view that justice is for the interest of strong. For him the ruler is in perfect state and he cannot make mistake. Whatever law such perfect ruler will make it will be for his interest therefore justice will serve the interest of the strong. At this point the position of Thrasymachus looks strong and clear. He seems to giving a clear definition of justice but here Socrates uses the point of Thrasymachus to his own advantage. Socrates proves that the real purpose of any art is the betterment of its subject. For any true physician it is important to heal the patient. Here the physician is working for the interest of the patient. The same argument is true for any ruler. The laws enacted by the ruler will be for the betterment of the people and not his own interest. The real purpose of the justice is to help and improve the poor and serve their purpose. Reluctantly Thrasymachus gives approval to the arguments presented by Socrates. Since end of any art is the betterment of its subject therefore art of ruling is also for the betterment of the people. Thrasymachus is embarrassed by the situation and takes another radical view regarding justice. He terms unjust as lord over the just. According to Thrasymachus in private affairs the partnership between just and unjust person always prove beneficial for the unjust. Similarly when it comes to paying tax the just man will pay more than the unjust but when it comes to getting benefit the unjust will get more than the just. Thrasymachus then further illustrates his point by stating that tyrant takes other people things by fraud and force and despite this he is not called robber or burglar but he is termed happy and blessed. From this Thrasymachus concludes that when injustice is done on a large scale it becomes powerful and strong than justice and therefore injustice is virtue while justice is vice. Socrates asks from Tharsymachus that just man does not want to exceed from another just person while unjust person wants to exceed both from just and unjust person. Now comparing this with learned and ignorant person the argument of Tharsymachus is proved wrong. Learned person does not want to exceed from another learned person while ignorant person wants to exceed both from ignorant and learned person. According to Socrates ignorant person is similar to unjust person as both have same ambition and attitude. There is no denying the fact that ignorant person is bad therefore unjust person is also bad. If we look at the points presented in “The Republic” then it becomes clear that Socrates is advocating ideal situation and wants people to behave in such manner in order to make a better society. On the other hand Tharsymachus is presenting facts of the real world but with exaggeration. The situation which Tharsymachus is presenting cannot prevail in the society for a long period of time nor is the situation desired by any society. The ideals presented by Tharsymachus will lead only to oppression. In order to make a better and peaceful world it is necessary to promote the ideals presented by Socrates. Although it may seem impossible to attain the ideals state but our effort to attain such state will result in better society. Work Cited Plato, The Republic, translator Francis MacDonald Cornford. Oxford University Press, 1975. Read More