Plato's Republic: Is Justice the Advantage Of the Stronger?

In a previous post where I summarized Book 1 of Plato's Republic, I described the various claims about the nature of justice. The claim that received the most attention was given by Thrasymachus, in claiming that "justice is the advantage of the stronger". This claim is most striking to me out of all of them; I found myself nodding my head in agreement when I read those words. 

However, I intend to do further thinking about this claim. One of the supplementary materials I am using to further my understanding of Republic provides this prompt: 

"What is the core of Thrasymachus' argument? Does he present a compelling case for the dominance of self-interest?".

The focus of this post will be my response to this prompt.

I. The Core of the Argument

My mind was filled with immediate examples of justice being utilized to the advantage of the stronger. The most striking example of this is in legislature. I won't embark on a significant political departure at this point, but there are many active movements in legislation both nationally and locally that trouble me. It is becoming harder to perceive these movements as anything other than the ruling class (or, the "stronger") establishing laws that serve their interests. After all, they possess the power to create and enforce these laws.  Thrasymachus argues that the ruled (or, the "weaker") obeying these laws is just. However, this ultimately benefits the rulers and disadvantages the ruled. 

Conversely, Thrasymachus believes that widespread injustice is more profitable and advantageous for the individual. The unjust ruler can promote "just" conventions to gain wealth, power, and freedom, while the just person is at a disadvantage by serving the interest of others. Thrasymachus famously states that "justice is really the good of another...and harmful to the one who obeys and serves". 

II. Is It A Compelling Case?

Thrasymachus presents a cynical and provocative argument at the least. I have difficulty with deciding what definition of "compelling" I would like use. In one sense, this argument evokes my interest. However, this argument can be refuted. 

In Republic, Socrates highlights several flaws in Thrasymachus's argument. Socrates first points out that rulers can make mistakes and enact laws that do not truly serve their interests. If justice is complying with the ruler, then it would be just at times to do what is disadvantageous to the ruler, thus contradicting Thrasymachus. 

Second, Socrates uses analogies of various crafts (like medicine and sheepherding) to argue that any true practitioner of any craft aims at the highest good of its object. A doctor aims to heal the patient, a shepherd aims for the well-being of the sheep. He extends the analogy to reason that a good ruler would aim for the good of the ruled. 

Third, Socrates argues that a group of individuals acting purely out of self-interest would be incapable of collective action. This is because of an inherent desire for each individual to "one up" each other. Injustice, therefore, leads to disunity and weakens the unjust person. 

Finally, Socrates argues that injustice is harmful to the very soul of the unjust person. This will continue as a central theme in the rest of Republic.

III. Conclusion

Thrasymachus offered a provocative claim about justice. It challenged the conventional notions of justice by asserting it as an instrument for the powerful. While this appears compelling at first glance, the refutations aim to demonstrate that justice is not just a tool to serve self-interest, but something inherently good for the individual and society.