In Plato's Republic Thrasymachus makes three claims about justice. First, he claims that justice refers to the advantage that the stronger one get. Secondly, he claims that justice is simply obedience to the law and thirdly, he states that justice is the advantage of another. This claims by Thrasymachus are founded on the idea that naturally the state is made up of two parts; the rulers and the ruled. People derive the idea of ruling and being ruled from the relationship between parents and children. The state then metaphorically becomes the parent thus the ruler. In his first claims, Thrasymachus states that it just his definition of justice and not of justice since it would amount to the delegitimization of it. Detailing his account, Thrasymachus states that some nations are ruled by tyrants while the democratic ones are ruled by the majority. Others by a small aristocracy (Reeve, 14). Therefore, the leader dominant political party is the stronger one in all nations and consequently, in all nation, leaders of the dominant political party pass laws that give them the advantage. Afterwards, they claim that justice is adhering to the law. Thrasymachus, therefore, concludes that refers to the advantage of the stronger everywhere (Reeve, 14).
Further according to Thrasymachus, it is not rewarding to be just since it just works to the advantage of others as opposed to the benefit of the just person. As a result, Thrasymachus believes that justice is the atypical restraint of people's longings to have more. It is a standard imposed on people and it does not profit them to be just. Therefore, Thrasymachus states that it is rational to entirely ignore justice.
What's wrong with Thrasymachus Argument?
First, Thrasymachus does not seem to be offering a description what justice is rather, he seemingly describes how it is practiced. As a result, his argument shows that an in-depth observation of the lives of the just and unjust reveals that the unjust accumulate more wealth, influence and friends than the just. Further, he fails to consider whether the tyrants and the aristocrats could themselves be rendering injustice. Accordingly, rendering justice for the leaders in government would mean meeting or advancing the well-being of the people. Therefore, creating rules that favor them and calling for adherence to them amounts to injustice which Thrasymachus refers to as the advantage of the stronger. Also, the claim that justice is whatever is good for the stronger could infer that what may benefit the stronger is just hence can be advantageous to the weaker also. Therefore, Thrasymachus definition may be used in different contexts to one's discretion.
Also, Thrasymachus is treating justice as something that is created by human being. That is to mean that if people fail to adhere to the laws created by the stronger, they would be doing injustice, while at the same time acting wisely not to put themselves in positions where they can be taken advantage of. Further, it suggests that in the absence of a social contract, we possibly may not recognize justice and injustice. Therefore, if justice refers to an objective quality, then Thrasymachus case creates a split meaning. That is, justice in a system being perceived as just by its observers as well as the very states of justness. If the unjust can use ‘justice’ to take advantage of the just then it is not at all justice
What we learn about human nature
Thrasymachus view later leads him to see complete injustice as better than complete justice (Reeve, 26). This is because of his view that human beings seek to maximize power, their advantages, and possessions. This is owing to his description that the stronger or the ruling party always serves to its advantage. It shows the egoistic aspect of human nature since the definition of the 'justice and injustice', and 'right and wrong' all depend on the proclamations of the ruling party. As a result, citizens would be more inclined to act just like the leadership since the society is controlled by "their rule." According to Fang and Casadevall, people are more inclined to cheat if others around them are cheating (33). Thrasymachus' description of justice as the advantage of the stronger somewhat resonates with the definition of cheating; acting dishonestly to gain an advantage, offered by Fang and Casadevall. Since Thrasymachus definition can be used in different context to an individual's discretion, similarly human being would be quick to cheat when the circumstances suit them. Also, since the ruling party and people in general act to accumulate power, wealth and gain more advantage, as stated in Why We Cheat, unchecked dishonesty may promote the idea that one ought to cheat to remain competitive (Fang " Casadevall, 34).
Conclusion
In conclusion, Thrasymachus nature of justice offers significant insight into laws we claim to be the standards of justice in the society. However, it fails to clearly substantiate why it would be rational to ignore justice while at the same time it would be beneficial for people to restrain their desires to have more. All-in-all, his ideas have been influential in moral and political theory.
References
Fang, FERRIC C., and A. R. T. U. R. O. Casadevall. "Why we cheat." Scientific American Mind 24.2 (2013).
Reeve, C. D. C. "Plato: Republic." Plato: Complete Works (2004).
