Comparing Plato's Thrasymachus And Glaucon

Looking up in the Merriam Webster dictionary justice is defined as "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments". The fact that the word itself is being used for its definition explains how ambiguous the concept of justice can get. It is because of the very same reason that some time between the years of 470 to 399 BC a very well-known argument took place in Piraeus. The mentioned years are the time period that Socrates lived, the argument evolves mainly on the concept of justice and the goal is to come to an operational account for it. Throughout this argument lots of accounts are given by different participants, which all get opposed by Socrates. Two of these contributors are Thrasymachus and Glaucon. The former argues that "justice is the advantage of the stronger" while the latter argues that justice is not something practiced for its own sake (intrinsic good) but something one engages in out of fear of its consequences (extrinsic good). As seen in book one and two of Republic, Plato's
Thrasymachus is a sophist who attacks Socrates at the beginning of his appearance. When we analyze his argument and his general way of carrying himself in debate, we can fully see the arrogance in his character. Thrasymachus ends his participation in the conversation by meanly congratulating Socrates on his "victory," and telling Socrates to "feast on his triumph" as if the argument on defining justice is some type of contest. His argument, the question of following the stronger, and the question of what justice is, might finally make sense, if we allow him to wrongfully mix two concepts of right and might. This is to say that Thrasymachus believes the mightier one gets the righter they are and the more just it is to follow