Thrasymachus Argument Analysis

It is Thrasymachus’ claim that, what is just, is “simply the interest of the stronger” (Cahn & Markie 2012); this paper will aim to argue in favor of this view, while refuting Socrates’ claims. My argument for this claim has x parts. The first part will outline Thrasymachus’ claim. The second will outline Socrates’ response and claim to the other’s view of justice. The third part will argue in favor of Thrasymachus by refuting Socrates responses. I will explain why each individual’s premises are either right or wrong with practical examples. Forth, having successfully reconstructed Thrasymachus’ argument, and countering Socrates’, I will reconstruct the pessimistic view of justice with added premises and challenge my own conclusion with questions …show more content…

It is his opinion that Socrates misuses others’ insight and fails to adequately come to a conclusion himself. In anger and great self-given purpose challenges Socrates and declares that he himself knows the answer to justice. For Thrasymachus the strong are those who decide what justice is, that is, those who are in power define justice. The first premise is that “Some cites are ruled by tyrants, and others by a democracy, and others by an aristocracy?” (Cahn & Markie 2012), this is simply to state that all types of governments have someone(s) in power. Next, “[I]n every city does not superior strength reside in the ruling body?” (Cahn & Markie 2012), premise three is “each regime has its laws framed to suit its own interest” (Cahn & Markie 2012). Together premise two and three simply state that the rulers are the ones that make up the laws because they are those who govern the populous. Premise four, “ these regimes have pronounced that what is for the interest of themselves is just for their subjects” (Cahn & Markie 2012). With his premises in order Thrasymachus states his …show more content…

Socrates fails to understand that when these acts are committed it is in the rule’s understanding that these acts are just. Even more so, if such acts prove to be harmful it allows for not only the ruler to correct his mistakes but also creates a case that other sovereigns might use to follow. In this, it can be said that when the ruler does unjust acts they actually amount to greater just acts, which these, acts originally unjust, begin flourish in to beneficial and just acts. The heart of this argument rest on the fact that the end results are looked at rather then the original beginnings of the act; these original harmful acts to the sovereign, through corrections and future use, become beneficial to that ruler and thus remain a just act. Starting off as concepts that are just, but actually unjust; through trial, error, and corrections as well as creating lessons for future use become just again and thus remain just acts to that ruler. They are only unjust for a fraction amount of time compared to the rest of its