Thrasymachus Vs Socrates

In the reading, The Republic, by Plato, Thrasymachus states what his own definition of justice is. His definition of justice is, “what is advantageous for the stronger”. What Thrasymachus means by this is that it is just forever whatever the ruling party must do to make sure that things are in their best interest. It is just for the ruling party to act in their own advantage. If a party is democratic, they will make laws that are in the best interests of democrats, if the party is tyrannical, they will make laws that are in the best interest of them. Thrasymachus believes this definition to be true everywhere, that as long as there is a ruler, it is just for them to do what is in their best interest. Since the government is the stronger, they …show more content…
Whoever the stronger is, it is just for them to do what is in their own best interest. Thrasymachus views laws as the control that the stronger have over the weak. In his mind, as long as one makes decisions that are in their own best interest, the weak must do whatever the rulers say. Socrates’ first refutation of Thrasymachus’ of justice definition is, “…it’s just to do not only what is advantageous for the stronger but also the opposite: what is not advantageous.” Although Socrates agrees with Thrasymachus that rulers can indeed make unadvantageous decisions, but it is still just that these decisions are followed, he finds a hole in his argument. In Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, he believes it is what is advantageous for the …show more content…
It is to his subject and what is advantageous and proper for it that he looks…” Going back to Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, he believes that it is just for the stronger to do what is advantageous for them. Thrasymachus argues that a ruler in the precise sense, never makes any errors and does what is best for himself, and his subject must follow. Socrates counters this by asking Thrasymachus if a doctor is a treater of the sick, or a moneymaker, and if a captain is a ruler of sailors, or a sailor. Socrates goes on say that they are craftsmen or rulers because of what they do and who their subjects are. The reason that Socrates does this because Thrasymachus does in fact agree with him when he says that a doctor is a treater of the sick in the precise sense. If a doctor is a treater of the sick in the precise sense, and not a money maker, then he is doing what is best for his subjects, and not himself. But Socrates contradicts what Thrasymachus’ definition is because he states that a ruler does what is advantageous for his subjects, rather where Thrasymachus said that it was just for the ruler to do what was advantageous for himself. Socrates makes another example and says, “Doesn’t it follow that medicine does not consider what is advantageous