Philosophy

In the first book of The Republic, Thrasymachus proposes to Socrates that justice within the city is merely the “advantage of the stronger.” He believes justice is conventional and inclusive of self-advantageous actions. He, then, concludes that injustice is more inarguably profitable than justice. Socrates, however, does not concur. Socrates refutes the notion that injustice is more profitable than justice. Socrates argues that injustice causes rifts and divisions within a city and it is these, rifts and divisions, that make it impossible for rulers to obtain advantage. To combat Socrates, Thrasymachus proposes that instability and factions within a city, can be cultivated by the actions of the unjust and just, alike. Ultimately, Thrasymachus maintains his belief that injustice is more profitable than the contrary.

Thrasymachus, first, argues that justice is conventional. According to Thrasymachus, conventional justice is the adherence by a city to presupposed standards. A city is led by example; therefore, if rulers are regarded as “just” individuals and these rulers generate the standards of the city – assumingly “just” standards, the city is, transitively, just. To better decipher Thrasymachus’ thought progression of conventional justice, one can consider an example. For example, citizens of the United States are taught, when learning to drive, not to run a red light. Citizens of the United States abide by this law, not only because of the obvious safety hazards of running a red light but, also, due to its legality. As a citizen, it is assumed that the law was generated by a just individual, whom possesses the power to infiltrate justice.

However, Socrates finds conventional justice to be fraudulent. He believes conventional justice is a jaded assumption. Conventional justice is blind. What if the law created is not just? Continuing with the prior example, citizens do not run red lights because it is presumed that the law was made by...