Thrasymachus and Justice in Plato's Political Philosophy - Research Paper Example

Module Module ID: Thrasymachus and Justice in Plato's Political Philosophy Distinguished sophist of ancient Greece Thrasymachus has elucidated the term justice while entering into discussion on the same topic with great philosopher Socrates, which has been elaborated by Socrates’ renowned disciple Plato in his Republic. Book I of the Republic encompasses the debate between Thrasymachus and Socrates, where the former makes two assertions about justice. At first, he declares the notion as mere the ‘advantage of the strong over the weak’; and secondly he views justice as ‘submitting to the prevailing statutes of the state law.’ (Hourani, 111) The powerful governments, according to Thrasymachus, strive to implement their policies by dint of the force they enjoy in comparison with the weaker states; consequently, the policy is expected to be observed and followed by all the weak nations. As a result, it becomes the law, which is unconditionally and unanimously imitated by all. Consequently, it is equally beneficial for the weaker due to the very reality that it would be obeyed by all the weak without discrimination, and hence will become a law for all individuals. The sophist also argues that justice imposes unnecessary restrains on the human desires, and thus it does not turn out to be advantageous for the majority of the people in general. Hence, on the one side, Thrasymachus defines justice as the exploitation of the weak individual(s) or stratum at the hands of the powerful; and on the other side, he declares it as the abiding of the uniform law, which looks at everyone on the foundations of equality and impartiality. Thus, stronger group signifies the elite or ruling stratum of society, while the weak can be compared to the masses at large. Since the stronger stratum not only articulates the rules and laws, but also abides the same rules it has devised for all, these statutes of law are supportive for the protection of the rights of the weaker too. Somehow, Socrates points out contradiction in the very definition of justice Thrasymachus has developed. Consequently, it invites criticism from Socrates because of the contradiction it contains in its very scope. Socrates, during his cross examination of the very arguments made by Thrasymachus, vehemently refutes the validity of his viewpoint. He is of the opinion that since the individuals, even from the strong and ruling classes, are humans, and hence can make mistakes, they cannot be expected to devise error free laws, policies and strategies. On the other hand, even their most sincere efforts can maintain flaws and mistakes while devising the laws; so these statutes, in the form of advantages and privileges for the stronger, are unable to present the real picture of justice in their nature and scope. Somehow, Thrasymachus counters Socrates’ objection by stating that the rulers are free from making errors or committing mistakes till they are at the helm of the power. And even if they commit they same, there is no one to challenge or point out their mistakes till they are enjoying the position of rulers. In other words, the weaker strata do not have the power to put even the incorrect rules into jeopardy. Consequently, they remain as the laws of the country till the individuals, introducing the same, are in the power. (Bloom, 25) Being one of the greatest logicians the world has ever produced, Socrates could not submit to the Thrasymachus’ claim that rules and laws are devised for the benefit of the rulers only. On the other hand, he clarifies his objection with the example that the artwork is created for the consumers and public, and not for the use of the artisan. Similarly, the shopkeeper involves into trade and merchandise by bringing commodities for the people. It is therefore, justice carries advantages for the common man at first, and hence cannot be attributed to the dominant political group only. Socrates also cites the professional abilities and proficiencies of the doctors, pilots and sailors, where all these professionals apply their skill for the good of others instead of applying their skills on themselves. (Bloom, 43) Plato is of the view that if every community confines its mental and physical capacities and proficiency and skills as well for its individual benefit, the concept of law and moral values as universal virtue will cease to exist. As a result, every community will develop its personal ideas and laws about social norms, moral values and justice eventually. (Bloom, 61) Socrates (and Plato as well) disregard the Thrasymachus’ presumption that the dominant political or social groups, institute laws and implement the same for their individual gains. (Hourani, 115) Ruling over others, like medical and sailing professions, is also an art in the eyes of Socrates, which requires broad exposure, vision and in-depth investigation of the entire scenario. If a ruler implements and imposes foolish or inaccurate policies in the name of peace reforms or welfare of the state, these policies cannot last long, and thus could be unacceptable for the masses at large. Socrates compares, Plato observes, life to a continuous competition, during the course of which the person gaining the highest achievements possesses the maximum virtues. (Bloom, 107) Thus, injustice is not a virtue altogether, as it is strictly against wisdom. Socrates, like his predecessor sages, takes wisdom as one of the greatest virtues, which cannot be acceptable for injustice. Since Socrates maintained command over analogy, he first forces Thrasymachus in a convincing manner to submit to his views by taking them to be correct and valid ones. Nevertheless, the sophist does not see eye to eye with all the arguments made by Socrates; consequently, he refutes to reach a conclusion Socrates is going to make. In his Republic, Plato demonstrates his unconditional support to the argument made by his great mentor Socrates. He defends Socrates’ doctrine of justice by connecting it to the individual virtue, individual rights and peace and order of society. He not only censures Thrasymachus and other sophists of his community, who have no concern with religious teachings and moral values, and receive pay against their services for coaching the young Athenians rhetoric and other disciplines. It is therefore he defies his statement about justice by declaring it superficial and shallow one. He is of the view that there could be five kinds of governments, which include aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny (White, 204-5). Among which aristocracy is, according to him, the affairs of government (or politeia) is regulated by an intellectual and philosopher king, on the noble principles of wisdom, justice, equality, rationality and fair play. The government would consist of three classes, which include the philosopher king, the soldiers (or guardians) and the masses, nature of which can be compared to gold, silver and iron respectively. Plato does not allow the ownership of any property to the first two classes, though the third one could possess the same. (White, 209) Plato idealizes this state of government, which can rarely be established in any part of the world. Decline in moral values paves the fall of society from aristocracy to timocracy, where the soldiers or military personnel rise to power. Such type of rulers pays all heed to military campaigns and adventures, and thus remains in conflict with the neighboring states. As a result, it cannot make progresses in the moral and philosophical uplift of the nation. Oligarchic state of government, Plato views, consists of the upper class, which increases gulf between the rich and the poor. This state of government confines the wealth and resources of the state to few hands only; and the rest of the people lead a life of misery and deprivation. It not only demonstrates very poor performance in internal and economic affairs, but also turns out of be inefficient in external relations and military campaigns. Consequently, anarchy and disorder raise their awkward heads in the wake of the establishment of oligarchy. Oligarchy and timocracy resemble each other, and share the drawbacks and flaws of each other in their nature and scope. Fourth type of political set up is democracy, according to Plato, which is actually the government elected by and representative of the majority of people. Democracy looks for freedom of thought and action, and announces unrestricted liberty to the people. Somehow, unnecessary and unchecked freedom leads towards chaos and committing of crimes, paving the way towards destruction of social norms and moral values on the one hand, and deterioration of economic prosperity on the other. The last form of government is tyrannical in nature, which is actually the outcome of weaknesses the democratic state carries in its scope. There is disorder, cruelty, injustices and inequalities under tyranny, and foundations of the state become weaker and weaker subsequently (White, 211). Since none of the above mentioned forms of government last long, change is always a rule in respect of government. Being a distinguished philosopher, Plato not only discusses the problems faced by the societies, but also suggests the possible remedies for the same. Book VI of his Republic discusses the ways that bring peace, harmony, order and stability in political and social establishment. He is of the view that political stability is possible only at the moment when the political leadership and rulers are higher, superior and more sublime than the rest of the masses in morality and character. In addition, if the statesmen are unable to display the higher level of nobility in their behavior and character, they should at least be equivalent to the general public in virtue and benevolence. (Klosko, 207-8) A true leader should be kind, compassionate and visionary, and should have sympathies for the masses. A successful leadership should be wise and knowledgeable, so that he can comprehend with the problems faced by the state on the one hand, and should have the ability to combat with the challenges on the other. The successful ruler should not be ignoble, foolish or corrupt. On the contrary, he must be vigilant, honest and brave in order to lead the nation at any precarious state of affairs. Hence, Plato seeks political stability and social harmony under the supervision of a benevolent, noble and visionary political leadership, which can only be provided by the aristocratic state of government. Works Cited: Bloom, Allan. “Plato’s Republic” Second Edition Basic Books 1968 5-110 Hourani, George F. “Thrasymachus’ Definition of Justice in Plato’s Republic” Phronesis Vol. 7, No. 2 1962 110-120 Klosko, George “The Development of Plato's Political Theory” Routledge, 1986 201-219 White, Nicholas P. “The Companions of Plato’s Republic” Hackett Publishing 1979 193-231 Read More