Socrates and Thrasymachus: On Justice - Essay Example

Socrates and Thrasymachus: On Justice I. Introduction Throughout the first book of Plato’s Republic the concept of justice is explored through theSocratic dialogue form. Beginning with his discussion with Cephalus through to his argument with Thrasymachus, Socrates offers an understanding of justice through the negation his opponent’s truth claims. This essay analyzes Socrates views on justice, with particular emphasis on his dialogue with Thrasymachus; it argues that -- while Socrates opposes many of the arguments presented -- he accepts that in great part society is unjust and subsequently needs to be restructured. II. Socrates Opening Views on Justice Socrates begins his investigation into the concept of justice by posing the question to Cephalus, asking him, “What is it? -- to speak the truth and to pay your debts --no more than this (Plato 330)?” Cephalus agrees that this is what true justice is. The debate carries on, as Socrates engages him in a dialogue by stating that merely paying your debts is not justice as there are certain situations where just action runs contrary to this precept. Instead, Cephalus’ son Polemarchus offers a new definition of justice: justice is to do good to a friend and not evil; that is, justice entails doing evil to an enemy, such as in war, and good to a friend. The men go on to discuss situations where a just man is better to have than a non-just man, and Socrates argues that in money contracts this is true; however, both men agree that in many situations, for instance where specific expertise is necessary, the just man isn’t always the most appropriate person. Socrates then asks Polemarchus how he is able to tell who is truly a friend, to which Polemarchus responds that a just person does good to people that do good to them. Socrates then argues that the truly just person should not do harm to anyone, as this will assuredly result in no benefit for society. III. Socrates vs. Thrasymachus Competing Views on Justice 1. Is justice merely the interest of the stronger? At this point in the discussion Thrasymachus’ interjects and criticizes Socrates means of expressing his opinions on justice. Thrasymachus states that, “I will not have you say that justice is duty or advantage or profit or gain or interest…I must have clearness and accuracy (Plato 336D).” After a series of arguments that Thrasymachus raises concerning Socrates’ means of teaching, Thrasymachus offers what he believes justice to be: “justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger (338C).” Socrates begins by refuting this view of justice from a literal interpretation of Thrasymachus’ words. Socrates asks shouldn’t one eat beef, because Ploydamas – a muscular person – eats beef. Thrasymachus takes issue with Socrates literal interpretation of his argument. Thrasymachus then extends the argument by referring to different types of government structures. He states, the different forms of government make laws democratical, aristocratical, tyrannical, with a view to their several interests; and these laws, which are made by them for their own interests, are the justice which they deliver to their subjects, and him who transgresses them they punish as a breaker of the law, and unjust. And that is what I mean when I say that in all states there is the same principle of justice, which is the interest of the government (338D) Here Thrasymachus is arguing that the government structure, not an innate or objective sense of what is just, is what defines justice. This government structure, whether it is ‘democratical, aristocratical, or tyrannical,’ is composed of those who have strength in society it is they who define the laws. The laws are then enforced on the weaker people to support the stronger, by claiming that the stronger are merely enacting justice. 2. How to define ‘interests’? Socrates offers a rebuttal by attempting to deconstruct Thrasymachus’ argument. He proceeds by asking Thrasymachus if the government rulers always know what their interests are, to which Thrasymachus responds that they do not. Socrates then states that it must be possible for the rulers to mistakenly act in interests that are contrary to their benefit, to which Thrasymachus agrees again. Socrates then concludes by asking, “Is there any escape from the conclusion that the weaker are commanded to do, not what is for the interest, but what is for the injury of the stronger (339E)?” This essentially means that in some instances following the instructions of the rulers actually injures the stronger party; that is, “justice is the injury quite as much as the interest of the stronger (340B).” 3. Do rulers act justly? Cleitophon interjects and argues that Thrasymachus actually means that justice is actually the weaker following what the stronger thought to be their interest. Thrasymachus disagrees with this assessment of his argument, instead stating that, “the ruler, in so far as he is the ruler, is unerring, and, being unerring, always commands that which is for his own interest… therefore…justice is the interest of the stronger (341D).” Thrasymachus is essentially saying that by the very definition of being a ruler, the ruler always acts in his own interest; if the ruler fails to act in his own interest, he ceases to be a ruler. Socrates proceeds to deconstruct the nature of the ruler’s interest as characteristically unjust. He begins by establishing the true nature of the ruler, and has Thrasymachus admit that the true physician acts out of the interests of his patient’s illness; similarly, skilled horsemanship acts out of the interests of the horse, not the rider. Following Thrasymachus logic, Socrates proceeds by essentially deconstructing the nature of ‘interest’. First, Socrates shows that there are essential Forms of interest, exemplified in the body’s interest to be healed or the horse’s interest to be tamed. Socrates assumes that these are universal and unwavering characteristics. Socrates then goes to displace the meaning of ‘ruler’ to include the skilled craftsmen -- not necessarily a government official. Finally, he gets Thrasymachus to admit that these rulers are not acting in their own self-interest, but necessarily in the objective and universal interest of the weaker party, whether this be in the form of a physician healing a patient, a captain instructing his sailors, or a horseman riding his horse. 4. Is justice is a negative characteristic? Thrasymachus then argues that the unjust man is always the most successful and that being a just person is in many ways a negative characteristic. His intention with the argument seems to be that even if justice cannot be defined by his previous standards, following a ‘just’ path -- the definition of which is only insinuated by Socrates – offers no benefit to the individual. He offers a number of examples, stating that rulers who attempt to act in just ways are oftentimes derided by their friends and acquaintances; that people in contract negotiations who act unjustly always succeed in receiving more money. He is essentially, characterizing Socrates’ understanding justice as good and the right path as naïve. Socrates then develops a lengthy argument that refutes Thrasymachus’ claims by contending that injustice cannot be the correct path. Socrates argues that justice is the path of wise man, as injustice is contrary to an innate wisdom. Therefore, Socrates concludes that injustice cannot be virtuous. Socrates now offers a new perspective on justice. He argues that many of the issues Thrasymachus spoke about as beneficial to society cannot be achieved without collaboration. Therefore, even if one is at heart an in just person, they must act in accordance with just principles to achieve their goals. Furthermore, in establishing justice as a virtue, Socrates argues that being a just person is necessary to have a healthy soul. IV. Conclusion While in many regards it can be argued that Socrates directly refutes Thrasymachus argument, at the conclusion of the two men’s conversation it is evident that there are a number of points that Socrates tacitly agrees with Thrasymachus. It seems that Socrates refutations and deconstruction of Thrasymachus characterizations of rulers and interests demonstrates a divergence of opinion, but is ineffective in destabilizing the core of Thrasymachus’ argument. Thrasymachus view of justice is inherently more cynical than Socrates, as Socrates ultimately contends that the human soul innately just and that be following an unjust path the individual is actually living an unhealthy life. Ultimately, it seems that Socrates understands that the nature of society is such that injustice oftentimes does prevail and therefore it’s not the understanding of justice that needs to change but the entire structure of society; this is exactly what Socrates proceeds to do throughout the remainder of the Republic. References Cahn, Steven M. (2002) Classics of Political and Moral Philosophy. Oxford UP, Read More