Thrasymachus Vs Socrates

Thrasymachus argues for the view that justice is the advantage of the powerful – that it is “simply the interest of the stronger” (Plato’s The Republic, translated by Richard W. Sterling and William C. Scott, page 35). Laws, he says, are specifically “designed to serve the interests of the ruling class” (36). Of course, the ruling class is the strongest class, so it follows that the laws serve the advantage of the strong. The citizens under the ruling class serve “interests [of their strong unjust ruler] and his happiness at the expense of their own” (41). Thrasymachus concludes that “the dynamics of justice, then, consistently operate to advantage the ruler but never the subjects” (41).
The strong cares for others inasmuch as it serves the interests of the strong Socrates quickly objects that the definition of governing is not to consider what is in the interest of the strong, but only what is in the interest of governor’s subjects, which prompts Thrasymachus to further explain his view. He explains that that the governor cares for his citizens in the same way that a shepherd cares for his sheep. It is true that a shepherd will tirelessly care for his sheep: making sure they have sufficient food and water, watching them by day or
The private individual would be disdained by society, being “branded a thief, swindler, housebreaker, cheat, or robber of temples” (41). But if someone “uses the power of government to enslave [his fellow men],” these condemnatory epithets are nowhere to be found (41-42). Thrasymachus concludes his argument by saying that people condemn justice “only because they fear to be its victims and not because they have scruples about being unjust themselves” (42). Therefore, injustice “is whatever serves the personal advantage of of any man,” while “justice is whatever serves the value of the stronger”