The dialogue between Thrasymachus and Socrates is different from any other dialogue in The Republic. There is a sense of hostility in the way Thrasymachus speaks that made the whole dialogue tenser. Not only that, Thrasymachus also knows Socrates’ method of breaking down people’s arguments. The dialogue started with Thrasymachus calling out Socrates for never giving a straight answer. Socrates on his defense claims that he does not give answers because he simply does not know the answer. This stirs up Thrasymachus to give his own definition of justice. After agreeing to give his own definition of justice, Thrasymachus claims “justice or right is simply what is in the interest of the stronger party”(Plato, 18). Thrasymachus believes that no
…show more content…
Socrates starts fresh by asking the idea of “techne”. He claims that each professional skill has a purpose other than to be learned and perfected. Each professional skill has a purpose to be oriented on its subject. For example, a doctor uses his skill to heal his patients, a horse trainer uses his skill to train his horse, and a boat captain uses his skill to safely and properly navigates his crews. Each of these example suggested that a skilled craftsman does not uses his skill on his own interest but on the interest of his subjects that are not self-sufficient. If a body does not get sick, then the skill of medicine would be useless, thus there would not be any doctor. It can be concluded, “no ruler of any kind, qua ruler, exercises his authority, whatever its sphere, with his own interest in view, but that of the subject of his skill”(Plato, …show more content…
He claims that justice is not only the interest of the stronger party, but it is the stronger party exploiting the weak. He gave an example of the relationship between a shepherd and his flocks. The shepherd take cares and feeds his flocks just to gain profit out of them. The shepherd does not care what happen to the flocks once he has gain profit from them. Justice is basically “what is good for someone else, namely the interest of the stronger party or ruler, imposed at the expense of the subject who obeys him”(Plato, 25). This argument is followed with the idea that being unjust is preferable than being just. Thrasymachus believes that an unjust man always comes off better than the just man. The unjust man will use his trickery to deceive the truth and work above the law to gain more benefit than the just man who will need to follow the law. An unjust man will maximize his gain and “plunges its victims and their honesty in misery”(Plato, 26). However, being unjust has a consequence of being caught and put to prison. But if done successfully, injustice has greater benefits than justice. Thrasymachus then concluded “that justice is the interest of the stronger party, injustice the interest and profit of oneself”(Plato,
Socrates starts fresh by asking the idea of “techne”. He claims that each professional skill has a purpose other than to be learned and perfected. Each professional skill has a purpose to be oriented on its subject. For example, a doctor uses his skill to heal his patients, a horse trainer uses his skill to train his horse, and a boat captain uses his skill to safely and properly navigates his crews. Each of these example suggested that a skilled craftsman does not uses his skill on his own interest but on the interest of his subjects that are not self-sufficient. If a body does not get sick, then the skill of medicine would be useless, thus there would not be any doctor. It can be concluded, “no ruler of any kind, qua ruler, exercises his authority, whatever its sphere, with his own interest in view, but that of the subject of his skill”(Plato, …show more content…
He claims that justice is not only the interest of the stronger party, but it is the stronger party exploiting the weak. He gave an example of the relationship between a shepherd and his flocks. The shepherd take cares and feeds his flocks just to gain profit out of them. The shepherd does not care what happen to the flocks once he has gain profit from them. Justice is basically “what is good for someone else, namely the interest of the stronger party or ruler, imposed at the expense of the subject who obeys him”(Plato, 25). This argument is followed with the idea that being unjust is preferable than being just. Thrasymachus believes that an unjust man always comes off better than the just man. The unjust man will use his trickery to deceive the truth and work above the law to gain more benefit than the just man who will need to follow the law. An unjust man will maximize his gain and “plunges its victims and their honesty in misery”(Plato, 26). However, being unjust has a consequence of being caught and put to prison. But if done successfully, injustice has greater benefits than justice. Thrasymachus then concluded “that justice is the interest of the stronger party, injustice the interest and profit of oneself”(Plato,