Marko Veckov

Holden Hackney Philosophy-101 September 23, 2020 Dr. Freiberger ESSAY #1 In Plato’s Republic, debate on the notion of justice gets a sense of rhetorical dispute, most notably between Socrates and Thrasymachus. They both defend their position on their idea of justice and what it represents on social, political or individual level. Devaluation of justice by Thrasymachus meets its upheaval by Socrates and his persuasive efforts towards the other. “Now, surely, Thrasymachus, the crafts rule over and are stronger than the things of which they are crafts? Very reluctantly, he conceded this, as well.”[ CITATION Pla20 \l 1033 ]. Socrates uses these sorts of questions during his refute with Thrasymachus. The type of questions Thrasymachus must respond in acknowledgement of Socrates being correct. Socrates uses this strategy to have Thrasymachus answer his own questions in attempt to make him realize he is incorrect, and that “Socrates” idea of justice, is morally correct and, just. Socrates puts to use tool of analogy, as well as one of deductive reasoning. He does so in the first part of their debate, when he asks the question about the possibility that rulers, who can undoubtfully make mistakes, bring out the laws which are not good. “But the subjects are to obey any law they lay down, and they will then be doing right?” [CITATION Pla20 \p "19, I. 339" \l 1033 ]. Afterwards, he (Socrates) observes that according to Thrasymachus, it would be of their advantage to act according to these laws even if they are not in the interest of the stronger party. Thrasymachus believed, that all laws, being democratic or autocratic, are brought to serve the interest of the strongest. Thrasymachus admitted that rulers sometimes enact laws that are disadvantageous to them. He also asserts, that those in lower positions of the society must obey them at all costs and then they will be doing the right thing. Out of these two premises, the conclusion is drawn, that sometimes subordinates do something that is not in the interest of the stronger party and that is right to do. Other witnesses of this rhetoric dispute, like Polemarchus confirm that this is what Thrasymachus initially said. However, Cleitophon makes a remark that he believes that Thrasymachus intended to present the rulers or any other craftsmen as, strictly speaking unmistakable. He does so by mentioning the notion of a physician or mathematician, which according to him rarely, if ever make a mistake. Therefore, he spoke of subordinates always acting according to the laws rulers made, but that are always made to the advantage of them (rulers) and their friends. Thrasymachus believed that rulers or any craftsmen, when they act according to their position, don’t make mistakes. By going outside of this domain, it is possible to speak of rulers or other man of skills, who make mistakes. Here, Thrasymachus answers Socrates with the similar idea of deductive reasoning, when he draws a conclusion that it is always right to do according to the interest of the stronger party. However persuasive Thrasymachus seem to be after comments by the Socrates, he had changed his initial position, already. At first, he believed that every act of the ruler is intended to serve his own interest and that it is righteous for subordinates to obey them. Now after a comment from Socrates, he changes his position, claiming to speak of rulers in most strict sense of the word, of someone who cannot make mistakes. He speaks of the art of governing larger group of people, that requires special skills, just like any other craft, of an artist or sculptor. What remains to be answered after this part of the debate is: if the rulers are all unmistakable and if acting in their best interest is right, then what constitutes ‘their best interest’? Socrates asked curious questions, then, about the nature of the craft itself. Has the art itself any corresponding need of some further art to remedy its defects and to look after its interests; and will that further art require yet another [CITATION Pla20 \p "23, I.342" \l 1033 ]? He gives the examples of the art of medicine that is intended to correct flaws of the body and other skills that need to correct the flaws of the medicine itself. However, according to his opponent, every art is in the strict sense flawless and needs to be exercised only with reference to its subject or its matter. Socrates then observes that if the idea of medicine is to serve human body and if similar can be said for any craft, then its performance isn’t in accordance with the interest of the performer. This last comment depicts Socrates still in his concern over the art of governing other people. If the ruler performs his art for the sake of its subject or the matter and these are the people he rules over, then he is not acting in his own selfish interest. Just like the shepherd who looks after his flock, and gets certain reward in the form of wage, ruler also expects reward, which is for him somehow different. The real art of governing is therefore pictured as service to the people, without a reward in that strict sense. Thrasymachus replied by claiming once more that ‘injustice’ is stronger than ‘justice’ and that the sole purpose of shepherd, is to look after his flock for the sake of his master’s profit. Just like him, ruler who chains his fellowmen into obeying him in every action is admired and those who do the same on a smaller scale are punished. When they commit a theft, they are thieves or robbers, but when this do someone with power over the others, he is called just, as laws he imposed on them are for them to obey. Socrates replies by claiming that this highly unjust men can do more for himself by doing good and acting justly, then disrespecting those below him. I will make no secret of my own conviction, which is that injustice is not more profitable than justice, even when left free to work its will unchecked [CITATION Pla20 \p "26, I.344" \l 1033 ]. He challenges his interlocutor to prove him and the others there, who might feel the same way, wrong. He makes a remark that his opponent’s description of the shepherd isn’t that strict as for the physician. Socrates notices that in shepherd’s best interest is to look after his flock the best way he can and makes an analogy with the ruler, who similarly looks after the people he governs. He draws a parallel to physician who doesn’t get paid for his work and still does good to those who he treats and Thrasymachus agrees upon this. Likewise, Socrates claims ruler is in no position to ask of those he rules over to act in his own interest but acts for the sake of some form of prize, being monetary or not to their advantage. What is even more evident, he does so not out of desire of being rewarded. Socrates’ argument that craft is done for the sake of its subject and not out of interest of the performer denies his opponent’s argument. He denies that ruling is done by the stronger party. According to him, ruling is done out of fear of punishment and not out of desire for reward. Works Cited Plato. "Thrasymachus: Justice as the Interest of the Stronger." Plato. The Republic. n.d. Accessed 27 September 2020. .