Thrasymachus Vs Socrates Research Paper

A54902473 In this paper I will reconstruct the reasoning of a conversation between Thrasymachus and Socrates. The discussion that they are having is on what is justice and what it means to be just. I will focus on the beginning of their conversation when Thrasymachus states his initial thesis to the point where Socrates finds a contradiction in that thesis. Thrasymachus’ initial thesis is “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (Plato 14) and later clarifies it to be “justice is, the same in all cities, the advantage of the established rule” (15). By this, Thrasymachus is saying that it is just and right for those who have more power to do things that benefit them in a positive way. Rulers of a city ultimately have more power over the people and make laws that benefit their rule. They are kind to those who follow their laws and punish those who break the laws.

The first two questions that Socrates asks is if it is just to obey the rulers and if the rulers can make mistakes. Thrasymachus says that it is just to follow them and that rulers can make mistakes. Socrates then continues to analyze the thesis, asking Thrasymachus if rulers can make incorrect laws since they can make mistakes. Thrasymachus agrees to this and with the next question agrees that a good law is one that benefits the rulers and bad if it does not benefit them. Socrates then asks one more question, asking if the people have to follow the laws that the rulers make. Thrasymachus agrees to this statement, allowing Socrates to see a contradiction in Thrasymachus