Thrasymachus--What is he saying?

Hello.

Plato again. Question one for today: What is Socrates’ main argument against what Thrasymachus says, that justice is whatever the strong says it is. One of THOSE questions. I don’t like these short answer questions.

Ok, my answer. Socrates’ main point in the first part was that justice could not be whatever the strong said it was, according to their own needs, because what is the point of a governor but to care for his people? Thrasymachus says that men of law makes laws for their own benefit or intrest, this is what Socrates disproves with the comparison to men of the arts and sciences.

Second question: In the second part, what are Thrasymachus’ main points and Socrates’ response(s)?

Second answer: First, directly after the break, Thrasymachus compares lawmakers to shepherds. Unlike other men of art or science, they work solely for the benefit of themselves, not of their subjects, the sheep. And, he says no skilled craftsman makes a mistake, be they a teacher, a doctor or a mathematician. Therefore, the skilled ruler will make no mistake in acting what is best for himself, giving his subjects no reason to rebel. Second, he says that a just man will come off worse in every argument. Socrates’ response to the first point is that if we are going by the definition of a true practitioner, a man who works only to fatten his sheep for profit is not a practitioner, he is a business man, as a practitioner would act only for the benefit of his subjects. To the second point, Socrates slighly avoids the idea, as it seems that there can be no answer. The unjust man WILL come out better in any argument. Instead, he talks about the want to rule, which I think links back to what he believes about the philosopher kings.

And now, my own question: Is Thrasymachus right? Are there some situations in which might does make right?

I think that the answer is yes. I think that, though I would love to believe in some lofty notion of justice, in the real world, a world that Socrates doesn’t seem to acknowledge, justice isn’t always so perfect. Sometimes, might DOES make right, in the real world.

A perfect example of this would be war. In war, the mightiest win, and who is “right” in war is written by the victor. Does that mean that they are REALLY right? No, not necessarily. But will anyone ever know? Few will.

One of the very good points that Thrasymachus makes that Socrates evades all together is that the just man will always come out behind the unjust man in most transactions. Though Socrates has something to say to almost all of Thrasymarchus points, he says nothing to this. This is because, in my opinion, you can’t deny the fact that in ninety-nine percent of all cases, the unjust man will prevail. Think about life in general. Most people who do good deeds everyday will go unnoticed for the rest of their lives. Perhaps they will give their money away to charities and family members who need it and end up poor. The unjust man, however, will keep all of his money to himself, as he is also not “good” we determined that at the end of the passage, part of being just is being “good”—though the definition of good is anyone’s guess—he will live comfortable, never wanting for anything. Will the just man ever get any credit for what he has done? No, most likely not, will any of those people every repay him? No, though he is most likely happy to give him money away.

This is rather circumstantial, but an unjust man would be willing to do things for money that a just man would never think of. So the just man is the better person, but will always end up one step behind.

So there you have it, my opinion. Thrasymachus may have a very valid point, and what does that say about us?

Goodbye.