Furkan Eref Yaln 20900971 PHIL 243-12 Final of 1st Essay Dominic Mahon

02.11.2012

02.11.2012 Essay Question: Critically analyze Thrasymachus claim that justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger. To what extend is Socrates successful in refuting this position?

The journey of seeking the justice has been one of the most important occupations for centuries. Because people have the urge to know what is just, so that they can rule their cities and countries, organize their relationships between them and even punish some of them in order to live happy and honorable lives as societies. Also Plato, who is one of the most significant figures of ancient Greek philosophy, seeks the justice in one of his book, The Republic. Socrates, as well as another ancient Greek philosopher and Platos teacher, is the main character in the book and he speaks for the sake of Plato. In Book I, Thrasymachus claims that justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger (p. 14) and Socrates tries to disprove his claim. To refute Thrasymachus definition of justice, Socrates claims that the just is some kind of advantage, but not of the stronger and tries to supports his claim that rulers occasionally might be mistaken and they seek the advantageous of their subjects. But actually it would be wise to say he is not successful at all. Because according to Thrasymachus, an ideal ruler makes no mistakes and always seeks his own advantage, and Socrates attempts to use irrelevant analogies and unsuccessful refutations so that he could not give any viable answers to these claims.

Furkan Eref Yaln 20900971 PHIL 243-12 Final of 1st Essay Dominic Mahon

02.11.2012

02.11.2012 Thrasymachus argues about justice and says, Justice is the advantage of the stronger (p. 14) but even the first time Socrates speaks, he starts to use an irrelevant analogy by mentioning a pancratist (pancration is a sport activity which is a combination of boxing and wrestling) who should be a physically strong person. By doing so, he tries to show that he underestimates Thrasymachus and tries to make him irritate. It turns out he is successful because Thrasymachus says, You disgust me, Socrates. Your trick is to take hold of the argument at the point where you can do it most harm (p. 14). Afterwards Thrasymachus elaborates his claim. He mentions about cities, which are ruled either by tyranny, democracy or aristocracy and how rulers hold the advantage by making laws and then he states, they declare what they made -what is to their advantage- to be just for their subjects, and they punish anyone who goes against this as lawless and unjust (p. 15). As it should be understood, Thrasymachus believes every regime works for itself and struggles to preserve the advantage of the rulers. It indicates that Socrates even tries to sabotage and trick Thrasymachus, and refute his claim by using an irrelevant analogy; he expresses his claim loud and clear.

Then Socrates shifts the aim of the discussion. In order to refute Thrasymachus argument, he begins to establish his reclaim based on the possibility of mistaken rulers, so they sometimes would not act on their behalf. Socrates asks are the rulers in all cities infallible, or are they liable to error? (p. 15) to Thrasymachus and he answers that they have the capacity to make errors. So mistakenly rulers may order

Furkan Eref Yaln 20900971 PHIL 243-12 Final of 1st Essay Dominic Mahon

02.11.2012

02.11.2012 something disadvantageous to themselves and this situation causes to refute Thrasymachus claim, because justice becomes not an advantage of the stronger anymore. At this point Socrates seems to disprove Thrasymachus justice definition. But then Thrasymachus changes his idea about mistaken rulers; because he believes they talk about a hypothetical and an ideal system and he gives an example about a doctor who makes an error in the treatment (p. 16) is no longer a doctor. Similar to the doctor, a ruler never makes errors and unerringly decrees what is best for himself, and this his subjects must do (p. 17). At first Thrasymachus seems to lost the discussion, but then he straighten his view about mistaken rulers. So, again, Socrates would not be able to refute Thrasymachus claim.

Afterwards, Socrates leads the discussion to another approach. He argues that rulers do not act for their sakes but for theirs subjects sake. It is clear that he believes justice is some of kind of advantage (p. 15), but not of the stronger (p. 15) and by his claim, the ones who obey and serve for the sake of justice has the advantage. To support his claim, he rightfully says that a doctor never acts on his behalf and always seeks his patients advantage. Then Thrasymachus has nothing to do but agreeing to Socrates claim and firstly it seems Socrates would be able to refute his claim finally. But even he agrees, he actually gives a contrary example about a shepherd who fattens and take care his sheep. When it is examined from outside, it might be happen to come up with the idea that the sheep have the advantage here, but actually once

Furkan Eref Yaln 20900971 PHIL 243-12 Final of 1st Essay Dominic Mahon

02.11.2012

02.11.2012 they fatten enough the only place they go is the slaughterhouse and obviously there is no advantage in that. Thrasymachus finalizes his claim by saying Justice is really the good of another, the advantage of the stronger and the ruler, and harmful to the one who obeys and serves (p. 19). For the third time Socrates would not be able to refute Thrasymachus claim of justice, even tough he is very close to doing so.

The debate, which is between Thrasymachus and Socrates, is about whether justice is the advantage of the stronger or not, concludes for the behalf of Thrasymachus. Without hesitation, it should be accepted that Socrates has several solid arguments, such as mistaken ruler (p. 16) and rulers seek the advantageous of their subjects (p. 19). Additionally, at some point Thrasymachus needs to revise and change his claim about mistaken ruler. Even with all those reasons he cannot refute Thrasymachus claim about justice. Because Socrates attempts do not satisfy that he would not be able to present his statements accurately, and sometimes he uses irrelevant analogies and he cannot represent a viable and solid antithesis to Thrasymachus arguments.

Furkan Eref Yaln 20900971 PHIL 243-12 Final of 1st Essay Dominic Mahon 02.11.2012 References: Plato. (1992). The Repuplic. Hackett.

02.11.2012