Thrasymachus Vs Socrates

Among the thinkers we have studied in class, we can divide their views on political justice into two major categories: those who believe justice is what the ruler says it is, and those who believe justice is part of a higher “moral code” independent of the ruler. Thrasymachus and Hobbes believe that the powerful dictate law and order. On the other hand, Aristotle, Polemarchus, Socrates, and Plato believe that justice cannot be influenced by those of the ruler. I believe the best account of political justice is a combination of a few thinkers including those of Thrasymachus, Aristotle, and Plato. This account would borrow Thrasymachus’s idea that those who have power dictate justice; Aristotle’s idea that the well-being of the community would be better than the prosperity of the individual; Plato’s idea that justice is merely an instrumental value. The approach of Thrasymachus and Hobbes on the claim that justice comes from power could be described as quite similar. Thrasymachus recognizes the possibility of three possible regimes. But no
matter which regime is enacted, every other person, citizen or foreigner, is ruled over. The one in power always makes and enforces rules in its own interest. The strong rule and the weak suffer. More aptly described as “What’s just is whatever is advantageous to the stronger”.(Mackie 10/08)
This account of justice is similar to that of Hobbes whose views are contained in the Leviathan. Hobbes argues that the state of nature or no government is complete chaos. Any wealth created without a government can be seized by another entity with a larger military force. While everyone may be tempted to wage war, a commonwealth defined as “a common interest in keeping something” is a much better solution. Hobbes describes that a social contract is needed with the citizens giving up part of their power to the government and in return, what is just and unjust can be decided. This is needed because people need to be coerced into doing the right thing with the terror of punishment greater than the benefits of breaching the law.(Mackie 10/20) The dynamic between the ruler and those being ruled is what Hobbes compares to the Leviathan, Hebrew for sea monster, with a large body built out of the many humans as subjects and it’s small head made up of its sovereign. This social contract theory is very similar to that of Glaucon who argues that justice is merely an instrumental value using the “Ring of Gyges” as a thought experiment showing that if people were invisible, the supposedly just people would act the same way as the originally unjust people (Plato 360a).
Socrates objects to this view of justice as the ideals of the ruler. Socrates mentions that “no one in any position of rule, insofar as he is a ruler, seeks or orders what is advantageous to himself, but what is advantageous to his subjects.”(Plato 342e). He tries to argue that rulers do not rule for themselves but for the benefit of their subjects. This is not a very good objection because no matter how many rulers there may be, the rulers could either make a constitution that benefits all or benefits the ruler. Aristotle describes this in his six types of Constitutions. With just one ruler, a Kingship could be formed that benefits all or a Tyranny can be formed that only benefits the ruler. With a few rich people as rulers, an Aristocracy could be formed benefitting everyone or an Oligarchy could be formed benefitting themselves. Even with many poor people as rulers, a theoretical Polity could be formed benefitting all or a Democracy that only benefits the majority.(Mackie 10/29) It cannot be denied that at least some rulers rule for themselves instead of their subjects. A prime example of this in the modern era is North Korea. The government of North Korea is a small group of military leaders who live a lavish lifestyle as the citizens go hungry and are starving to death. Whoever is in charge throws their political enemies into jails and labor camps proving that ideal rulers do not always exist like Socrates states.
While Aristotle, Polemarchus, Socrates, Plato and Glaucon are grouped into the thinkers that believe that justice is independent of power, each view contains many distinct differences.
Aristotle believed that citizens needed to participate in the government to live a good life. He concludes people are “political animals” giving people their sense of humanity. He even uses this to make an argument for why slaves should be allowed by stating that everyone needs to have a ruler and that those who are unable to rule themselves through a lack of rationality needs to be ruled by others.(Aristotle 8) This is an extremely weak argument as he immediately argues how slaves need to have enough rationality to carry out their master’s orders. This seemingly contradicts his own argument of a lack of rationality. However due to the circumstances and views of society during these times, he could not see the contradictions in his own
argument.
Aristotle split justice in to two distinct categories, general justice and particular justice. He believed general justice is people receiving what they deserve, and for a whole society to be just, humans must live a life without lies and the temptation to cheat. He also describes particular justice as justice being proportional to one’s value or merit. Only judges can deliver a judgement on someone without any prejudice carefully weighing evidence and the details of a case for every individual case. (Aristotle 47)
Polemarchus’ take on justice is “to give each what is owed to him.”(Plato 331e). Polemarchus’ view, justice is based on acts of reciprocity, is very different from the views of Plato and Socrates. Socrates counters Polemarchus’ view with a just person shouldn’t harm a friend even if that is what is owed to him. This contradiction of having to harm a friend is a weak argument because as the friend of someone who may do something undesirable, a friend owes it to the friend to help him/her out without harming him. Not everyone would think their friend is owed death when something undesirable is done, by assuming a friendship, they are obligated to work through their differences together.
Plato offers his own view on justice with justice compared to a “human virtue” making a person “self-consistent and good”(Plato 350d). He describes justice as an instrumental value similar to Glaucon with “doing injustice is good” and “suffering injustice is bad”. Every person benefits only when they themselves are unjust tempting everyone to be unjust. However we make laws specifically to deter the unjust behavior of one removing that temptation. (Mackie 10/29) This concept can be further reinforced with game theory and the example of one person not cleaning the house while everyone else does. Because everyone except one person is suffering, everyone is tempted to stop cleaning. When everyone stops cleaning, everyone suffers even more leading to a cleaning schedule with punishments if not followed being enforced among the group.
The best account of political justice is a combination of the ideas of a few thinkers. Thrasymachus’s idea of justice being whatever is advantageous to the strong is well supported and the objection made by Socrates is weak due to his idea that all rulers act in the same way. Aristotle’s idea of the well-being of a community being more important than those of the individual goes a long way to fostering a sense of community and humanity among groups. Plato’s idea of justice as an instrumental value is similar to Glaucon’s view which can be strengthened with the “Ring of Gyges” thought experiment. By pooling these three ideas, I think justice is a instrumental value that champions a sense of community controlled by those in power.