Comparing Thrasymachus 'And Socrates' Definition Of Justice

In the house of Polemarchus, Socrates and his colleague, Thrasymachus share their wisdom on the definition of justice. The scene is set for a mighty debate that will be discussed for centuries after this event. Thrasymachus, unsatisfied with Socrates’s rebuttal to Polemarchus’s definition of justice, pounces at the opportunity to have the upper hand on the great philosopher, and prove himself the wiser. Socrates, who just bested Cephalus and Polemarchus decides to entertain Thrasymachus and hear his interpretation of justice. A wager is made and the debate begins. Both philosophers argue their position fairly well, but I suggest that their arguments are lacking the component of love and justice.
Now Thrasymachus was a sophist. Sophist were
professional teachers and intellectuals who in return for a fee, offered young wealthy Greek men an education in aretē (virtue or excellence). This method of teaching made sophists wealthy and famous while also arousing significant antipathy, a deep-seated feeling of dislike.(Duke) With that in mind Thrasymachus’s states his definition of justice as “I say that the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (338c). This definition of justice is not the same for each country, each individual leader can benefit themselves in many different manners but ultimately comes down to “might make right.” Socrates hears this definition of justice and immediately requires clarification: does it mean that justice is what the stronger think is beneficial to them or what is actually beneficial to them (339b)? And don’t the strong rulers make mistakes and sometimes create laws that do not serve their advantage (339c)? Thrasymachus clarifies that the stronger are really only those who do not make mistakes as to what is to their advantage (340d).
I speculate that if this is Thrasymachus’s argument, then he as a sophist has taught this methodology of justice to the young wealthy Greek men who are the future leaders. With this way of teaching the sophist may not even have suspected that they missed key components to justice. What they have is a leader who only has himself in mind and is never wrong as long as it benefits him. Not only are their moral implications missing from that argument but also emotions such as love and compassion. A man can be taught virtue/excellence but, if there is no compassion to motivate them to act upon their teachings then justice is not truly being enforced.
Socrates does not take this argument from a love and compassion standpoint but instead from a morality.
He heard Thraymachus’s argument and saw that it was flawed. Socrates responds with a discussion of art or craft and points out that its aim is to do what is good for its subjects, not what is good for the practitioner (341c). Thrasymachus suggests that some arts, such as that of shepherds, do not do this but rather aim at the advantage of the practitioner (343c). He also adds the claim that injustice is in every way better than justice and that the unjust person who commits injustice undetected is always happier than the just person (343e-344c). This is where the philosophers disagree on the virtues of justice. Thrasymachus believes that as long as it is in your own best intrest you are just. Socrates says that those who are virtuous are also just and they should be leaders. The paradigm of the happy unjust person is the tyrant who is able to satisfy all his desires (344a-b). For how long will a system stand if the “stronger” is always right and will always make the right decisions for himself rather than the people. Socrates points out that the shepherd’s concern for his sheep is different from his concern to make money, which is extraneous to the art (345c) and that no power or art provides what is beneficial to itself (346e). Socrates claims that the best rulers are reluctant to rule but do so out of necessity: they do not wish to be ruled by someone inferior
(347a-c).
Socrates’s position although morally better than Thrasymachus does still have holes in it. He makes a great response, the leaders should lead for the good of the people and the country rather than the good of self. Sadly this does not an answer to the central claim of what is justice. For can a leader justly lead a country if their leading only out of obligation and not whole heartily. In any profession, someone can complete any task better if they are doing something they love rather than out of necessity. Another issue with Socrates’s view of the discussion is he is looking at the issue of justice from a “what should be” standpoint rather than “what is.” It is completely unrealistic. To find someone to lead only for the good of the people and not receive any benefits from it would be near impossible. Socrates take away the human aspect of his perception of justice. He does however understand that there must be a greater force than self-want to justly lead. I believe a combination of love and morality creates a sense of justice through the basic rights of the people.
As I suggested previously, I believe that both men firmly believe in their position of justice, but both lack in the subject of love and justice.
Such as where does love and compassion fall into Thrasychus’s very self-centered definition of justice? Also is love and compassion in a society where decision are based only on what is good for the people. Can the “stronger” lead based on love? From a Christian perspective the answer is yes, the “stronger” is God. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16 NIV) God showed his love through giving up his son, Jesus, whom through Thraymachus’s view of justice, benefited from by receiving followers and being the salvation to the world. With the Socratic view of justice, Jesus as the messiah was to benefit the people. Those who live according to His will receive the love of Christ and salvation in heaven. Can it be said that the son of God who died for the sin of man, conquered death, and now sits on the throne did this not out of necessity nor because he was the strongest and wanted to benefit himself but because he loved humanity. The Lord tells us to do all things in love. Whether leader or citizen we must allow love to define justice. If the people show love to the leader and benefit him through various ways. The leader can show loves to the people by administering justice that benefit everyone. What better way to administer justice
than through love.
Though this debate happened many years ago the discussion of what justice is has been talked about throughout the ages. Although these philosophers were unable to come to a conclusion, maybe they missed the mark. That might does not make right nor a moral obligation to lead, could it be said that through love is where true justice can be found. Nonetheless “have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.” (Hebrews 13:17 NIV)