Thrasymachus follows the principles of sophistry, an intellectual ideology that was most often related to the values of aristocratic warriors. Sophistry is also a term associated with fallacious reasoning and lack of moral consciousness. In The Republic, one of the sophists’ tenets was the framework of Thrasymachus’s notion of justice; this tenet concerns the relationship of what is according to nature and what is according to convention, or human custom (Duke). Unlike Sophocles, Thrasymachus does not believe that it is unjust to do harm to anyone, but his reasoning is also unlike Polemarchus’s. He cites the nature of different regimes such as democracy and tyranny, each of which is, at its very roots, one person or group ruling over the …show more content…
He builds up to his final claim by first eliminating what justice cannot be, and then determining what aspects make justice a virtue. Firstly, Plato states it is never just to harm anyone, even if they truly are one’s enemy; if that were the case, justice would make others more unjust, and that defies itself (335d-e). Secondly, Plato denies that justice is law in the interest or advantage of the stronger. Rulers are not perfect, and often make laws to the advantage of those other than themselves (347d-e). Plato’s most controversial claim, however, is that justice is not the law at all, and even goes beyond the law. After discrediting the arguments of Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Plato instead defines justice as a virtue of both individuals and societies with descriptions of the just man and the just city. In order to accurately identify justice in the human soul, he first builds the just city, where this virtue acts the same except on a grander scale. The just city’s founding principle relies on each person performing his proper function in society, which is divided into three groups: the ruling guardians, the aspiring guardians, and the working class