Analysis Of Thrasymachus's Three Notions Of Justice

the things of which they are they crafts. (342d). Furthermore, no one in any position of rule, as long as they are a ruler, seeks or orders what is advantageous to themselves. However, they seek what is advantageous to his subjects, the one of whom they are the craftsman. (342e). As a result of this formulation, Thrasymachus becomes visible upset because it has become evident that his account of justice had turned into its opposite. (343a).
During his frustration for Socrates, Thrasymachus gives his third notion of justice, that justice is really the good of another, the advantage of the stronger and the ruler, and harmful to the one who obeys and serves. Additionally, he states injustice is the opposite, it rules the truly simple and just, and those it rules do what is to the advantage of the other and stronger, and they make the one they serve happy, but not themselves at all. Furthermore, he claims that a just man always gets less than an …show more content…
Socrates spends the rest of the republic responding to Thrasymachus challenge. The challenge may possibly not be compatible with itself, specifically, the third point seems incompatible with the first two. Nevertheless, Socrates takes this challenge seriously. Additionally, it does not seem that Plato would take this challenge seriously if he believed that the three notions were inconsistent. Therefore, it should be understood that the three notions are compatible with each other: the first two are in reference to the ruler; the third is in reference to the actions of the ruled benefitting the rulers. However, one could posit that Thrasymachus third point is inconsistent with the first two, as was aforementioned because one could suppose that the ruler and/or stronger should do what is advantageous for