The Concept of Leadership Through Service on Using Justice - Essay Example

Argument Two Introduction In the Argument, Thrasymuchs postulates that justice is dependent on laws and laws are made by thatin power, whether by public majority in a democracy or the rich in Oligarchy under the claim that they are in the people’s best interests (Arp). This essay aims at discrediting Thrasymuchs, reasoning and arguing in favor of the opposite claim that justice is by no means the rule of the strong. He bases his arguments on two premises which are; the powerful create rules that serve their purpose and the make weak believe the opposite, in this context, the strong represent the ruling class and the weak are subjects and subordinates (338c). The second premise is that leaders are irrevocably oppressive since even when they make mistakes in judgment that would be seen to have the opposite effect of advantaging the weak; they are not technically leaders since as a craftsman a leader is infallible therefore when they err they are not actually leaders. He therefore contends that as the case is in all cities, it is considered just to obey the rules, retrospectively made by the strong to be followed by the weak and this is ultimately advantageous to the law’s authors. It is at this point that most proponents’ arguments will depart and the focus of this essay will be to critically consider their arguments cross-referencing them against Thrasymuchs initial argument and use objections to them to prove it was erroneous. First Proponent’s Arguments; Leaders Universally Make Oppressive Rules On the surface, proponents may postulate 2 arguments, in defense of the first premise by Thrasymuchs, (a) they will claim that leaders in society are in charge of making rules and as such they will be likely to use their power to make only rules that benefit them and this will translate into oppressing the weak for their own sakes (b). The happiest and most successful people in society are the strong and often the leaders; they achieve their happiness and status through unjust means. Before undertaking to criticize them, one should first examine the deeper issues that arise from these perspective; they will argue that since the strong create rules. It translates automatically that they are make rules that best serve their interests; they can punish those who deviate from their laws and by means of laws reprocess or redistribute property in the name of justice. Based on this, they will claim that since Thrasymuchs believed only a fool would use power to their own disadvantage, the existence of justice in a society was inseparable from the exploitation of the weak by the strong (Barney). A second premise on which support for the initial claim is based is the fact that in most cities, the happiest and the strongest are often unjust. Therefore, for one to be strong in any community they have to take advantage of others and according to Thrasymuchs, the unjust are always happier and more powerful than the just. As such for the strong to be strong, it is because they followed an unjust route and they needs must remain unfair to the weak by using justice to exploit them and therefore safeguard and maintain their unjustly acquired positions of power. Objection to First Proponent’s Argument If these arguments were indeed true, then it would be unequivocal validation for the argument made by Thrasymuchs since they are quite significant and reasonable. However if one departs from an appreciative and assumes a critical point of view, these arguments will not stand under logical scrutiny. For one, the underlying assumption here is that the “strong” are interchangeable with leaders, however, this is not always the case since in society, the strong, which in this case we assume depicts the wealthy and influential do not always have positions of power. While this argument may work in a dictatorship, in a democratic states leaders are elected by the common majority and their remaining in power is often determined by how much they sacrifice their own interests for the sake of the weak (Read public majority). Furthermore, the assertion that justice is the rule of the strong also indicates that they are not subordinate to the rules which they create. However, the rules in society bind all who live within it and if the strong break them, they will be liable to suffer the consequences just like the weak. Otherwise, social order would cease to exist and anarchy would prevail since in civilized society everyone in bound by the rules including those who make them. In addition, while conceding that a lot of people attain wealth and power through unjust means, it is myopic to imagine this is the only way through which such achievements can be attained. The argument that the strong are unjust is a fallacious attempt at turning a conspicuous exemption into the normative. This is because while it is undeniable that there are a few who use injustice to empower and sustain their power over other through unjust means, it is unfair to lump the whole of humanities leadership in that category. Second Argument: Leaders Are Craftsmen When Socrates proposed that leaders, being human are fallible, ergo can erroneously make rules that will favor the weak and thus Thrasymuchs’s claim cannot be universal, the latter responds by saying that leaders are craftsmen who cannot be professionally fallible (Plato 23). From here spawns the argument of whether the leaders can be considered real craftsmen, proponents of Thrasymuchs argument will support his claim that leadership is a craft since, (a) if one could compare it to crafts such being a shepherd it would emerge that leaders, work with the intention of benefiting themselves in the long run. (b) Leaders expect to be paid wages just like other craftsmen so by this regard, they must also be craftsmen. The deeper surface implication of these arguments are as follows; leaders are professionals who carry out specialized duties of governance and they expect and demand payment for their services otherwise they would not benefit from their art at all. As such, it must translate they are craftsmen since their carry out their art in the same way doctors and ships pilots do, they are motivated by these rewards and essentially they “sell” their services to the willing public. Objection to Second Argument While this is true to some extent, it is not a conclusive description of the nature of leadership in regard to it being or not being a craft. Objection of the presupposition that leaders are equal to doctors and ships pilots in can be drawn from one of Socrates counterarguments, he claims that; crafts are practiced for the benefit of the subjects not the practitioner therefore based on Thrasymuchs’ position that justice selfishly designed to elevate the strong and disadvantage the weak leaders cannot be considered craftsmen. Socrates uses Thrasymuchs’ analogy of a ship’s pilot, or doctor, he proposes that a doctor practices his craft not primarily to make money but to cure them (Antonis). Similarly, the ships pilot steers his ship to ensure the safety of the crew and cargo more than just for the financial reward that complements the job and so on. In addition, by equating leaders desire to lead with the craftsmen desire to provide services, proponent err, this is because in reality the strong who take over leadership do not do it with the intention of oppressing the weak. They rule in fear that worse men than them would assume leadership therefore ruling out of necessity (347a-c). The ruled chose to be “benefited” by the rule of others rather than incur the cost of benefiting another, in this context the word benefit can be used interchangeably with rule. In conclusion, we see that leadership is not necessarily an act of the strong subjugating the weak since leaders essentially serve at the and for the pleasure of their subjects. Furthermore the rules made by the strong bind everyone irrespective of their social position and unless in corrupt and decadent societies, the strong are no less venerable to the dictates of their rules. Theoretical Observations From that analogy, it is clear that justice can, and has been used by the strong to promote their interests often disenfranchising the weak majority. Notwithstanding, as Socrates argued out leadership is a craft that exists especially to serve the people, therefore true leaders people oriented do not lead to benefit themselves but their subjects. Since such leaders also exit, it would appear that despite the merits of the philosophical argument in which the two thinkers were perceptually in opposition, certain elements of both arguments coexist. Socrates claims true leaders indeed are servants of the people, therefore those who use justice to exploit others are not bona fide leaders. As such they should not be recognized in that capacity and ejected from the seats to pave way for, in the words of Socrates, “decent men” who by their fear of being ruled by people worse than them would assume leadership. The recent years, citizens in several Arab countries such as Syria, Egypt and Libya have exemplified the concept of leadership through service by overthrowing despots who were intent on using justice to oppress them. Significance of the Arguments The question of whether the strong use justice to exploit the weaker masses has remained relevant throughout history and provided fodder for generations of philosophers like Karl Marx and many others and can still be discussed in a modern context. Thrasymuchs stated that irrespective of whether a city is ruled democratically or despotically, the strong will use justice to trounce over and exploit the weak, this is unfortunately a reality in today mostly democratic world. Law are made by the legislature and this mostly consists of democratically elected individuals, from a layman’s perspective, this would appear ideal in ensuring equality and fairness for the electorate who are after all, if you believe political rhetoric, the real decision makers. However, to be elected, one must have considerable influence and funds, ergo; many of the politicians are backed by powerful corporates that fund their campaigns. As soon as they assume power, some of the leaders will be compelled to make laws their favor their corporate and political sponsors and of course themselves and deprioritize the electorates needs. Works Cited Antonis, Coumoundouros. Plato: The Republic. Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy . n.d. Web. 12 October 2013 Barney, Rachel, "Callicles and Thrasymachus", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2011. 12 October 2013 Plato. The Republic. 2nd ed. Trans. Desmond Lee. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1987. Print. Arp, Robert. The Double Life of Justice and Injustice in Thrasymachus' Account. Saint Louis University. n.d. Web. 12 October 2013 Read More