Introduction
Justice is a multifaceted concept that is crucial for societal growth and development. Through justice, human rights are respected, and everyone enjoys their freedom without interference. Although justice is a common theme in global legal systems, the concept has its origins in ancient philosophy.
Thrasymachus is one of the philosophers who approached Socrates to understand the meaning of justice. His perception of justice was that it is nothing but the advantage of the stronger. Consequently, tyrants use justice as a means of their interests against their subjects.
However, Socrates had a contrary opinion on what justice is. Therefore, in the ‘Republic,’ Socrates gives five arguments against Thrasymachus’ perception of justice: the error, craft, outdoing, common purpose, and function arguments. Although Thrasymachus and Socrates agree that justice is beneficial, they differ on whom it benefits.
Thrasymachus’s Meaning of Justice
Thrasymachus is one of the sophists in Ancient Greece who are featured in Plato’s ‘Republic.’ Thrasymachus answered Socrates’ question about the nature of justice by saying, “Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (Bloom 338c). His answer presented justice as a two-dimensional concept: political and reductive.
Firstly, by using the word ‘stronger,’ Thrasymachus meant that the tyrants, or politically powerful class, legislate laws for their interests’ sake. The good people in the society obey the made laws, believing that it is just to do so. Meanwhile, those who fail to obey the laws are punished. Secondly, by using the words’ nothing other than, Thrasymachus brought the reductive and deflationary nature of justice (McGuire 87). Therefore, Thrasymachus believed that justice is the social construction of powerful men in society who make laws that benefit them.
Socrates’ Attempts to Refute Thrasymachus’s Claims
Socrates presented five distinct arguments against Thrasymachus’ description of justice. Socrates’ arguments against Thrasymachus are exhibited in his conversation with Cephalus and Polemarchus. Socrates’ dubbed his first argument as ‘the error argument’ that dismantles Thrasymachus’ opinion that tyrants only make laws for their benefit (Bloom 338c-343a).
Socrates propounded that rulers are human beings and are susceptible to mistakes. Consequently, rulers sometimes make laws that contradict their interests. Therefore, justice cannot always be the advantage of the powerful political system.
Secondly, Socrates presented ‘the craft argument’ that involves people who seek to benefit their subjects. Socrates used the example of physicians and doctors whose primary objective is to heal patients (Bloom 333b). Although the crafts are stronger than their weaker subjects, they seek to benefit them. Therefore, justice is sometimes to the advantage of the weak in society.
Thirdly, Socrates used ‘the outdoing argument’ to refute Thrasymachus’ answer to the nature of justice. Unlike ‘the craft argument,’ ‘the outdoing argument’ gives justice a practical perspective. Socrates states the primary purpose of life is to make a living most worthwhile (Bloom 344e). Laws made by the powerful political class are meant to improve human life and not to benefit a specific section of society.
According to Socrates, Thrasymachus expressly meant that justice is vice since it is made with the ill intention of benefiting the tyrants. Meanwhile, injustice is a virtue since, without laws, the tyrants cannot benefit. Therefore, Thrasymachus’ opinion was absurd since an unjust life cannot be happier than a just life.
Fourthly, Socrates refuted Thrasymachus’ position with ‘the common purpose argument.’ The argument tried to define which was stronger between justice and injustice. According to Thrasymachus’ argument, injustice was beneficial compared to justice. Socrates argued that the nature of justice is that it enables a common action (Bloom 350d-352d). Meanwhile, injustice is something that prevents common action. The argument is evident in the contemporary legal systems where Constitutions protect the supremacy of the people, which is manifested through common action. Anything that is done contrary to the constitution is against the will of the people (Green 619). Therefore, laws are made to promote the common will of the people and not a specific class.
Lastly, Socrates gave ‘the function argument’ that was supportive of ‘the outdoing argument.’ The ‘function argument’ was based on virtues as manifested by laws and human beings. Socrates argued that a person’s or a thing’s virtue enables its well-being (Bloom 353c). Additionally, he stated that the soul’s function is living, and its virtue is justice (Bloom 353d-353e). Consequently, just people live well while the unjust are poor. People who live well are always happy, and the poor are always sad.
The argument is consistent with contemporary societies that are civilized and uncivilized. Civilized societies that promote justice have citizens who are economically empowered and living happily. Meanwhile, uncivilized countries with unjust laws have citizens who suffer from human rights violations and all sorts of pain (Pain). Therefore, the nature of justice is that it promotes human well-being in a particular society.
Conclusion
Justice is crucial for human sustenance on earth since it helps promote happiness and the common purpose of humanity. Thrasymachus defined justice as a social construction that is solely intended to benefit the most powerful people on earth. However, Socrates’ answers to Thrasymachus presented the vagueness of his argument.
According to Socrates, it is not obvious that all laws are beneficial to tyrants. Additionally, he argued that the crafts have the intention of promoting the well-being of their people. Furthermore, Socrates argued that laws are meant to foster well-being and advance the shared goals of humankind. While Thrasymachus propounded that justice benefits the political class only, Socrates refuted his argument and stated that justice is beneficial to everyone in a society.
Works Cited
Bloom, Allan. The Republic of Plato (2nd ed.). By Plato, BasicBooks, 1991.
Green, Craig. “Deconstructing the Administrative State: Chevron Debates and the Transformation of Constitutional Politics.” Boston University Law Review, vol. 101, 2021, p. 619. Web.
McGuire, John. “Chapter 3: The Resistible Rise of Rawlsian Reasonableness.” Cynical Suspicions and Platonist Pretentions: A critique of contemporary political theory, Brill, 2018. Web.
Pain, Paromita. “‘Will the Law Not Protect Survivors Who Don’t Weep’: Twitter as a Platform of Feminist Deliberation and Democracy in India.” New Media & Society, 2022, p. 146144482211130, Web.