Socrates asks Thrasymachus to clarify what he means when he says that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Thrasymachus puts forth that the ruling class sets down what justice is: “…in every city the same thing is just, the advantage of the established ruling body (p. 16)”. Socrates then begins to ask questions to get clearer about what Thrasymachus means. It is worth noting that the questions he asks relate to knowledge of the truth, for Socrates asks if it is possible that rulers make mistakes when setting down laws. That is, Socrates is introducing the idea that in order to serve your own interests, you have to know the truth. If you are not wise, you cannot give yourself the advantage, even if you are in a position of power to do so. Thrasymachus is essentially forced to recognize this, and argues that a ruler is not a ruler when he makes a mistake.

 

Socrates then introduces a distinction. He asks whether a doctor is a doctor because he makes money or because he heals bodies. And, of course, we have to accept that a doctor heals bodies. This leads, of course, to asking the same question about rulers. Is a ruler a ruler because he profits himself, or because he rules over people? Again, of course, we are forced to conclude that a ruler is someone who rules. Thrasymachus is agitated that he is losing face here, insults Socrates, and proceeds to make a long-winded argument that Socrates is spouting nonsense. In doing so, he flip-flops, essentially, on his position, arguing that the just man ends up getting the short end of the stick, whereas the unjust man profits, such as paying less tax by cheating on his return. This is somewhat confusing. For let’s assume that the rulers set down laws to their own advantage, such as that everyone has to give 80% of their money to the rulers each year. Now, practicing justice as a citizen, then, is a hardship, for you will pay unfair taxes. But the unjust man, who cheats on his taxes, profits himself. Justice is for suckers because justice is simply the advantage of the stronger. So I guess Thrasymachus is still consistent here.

 

Thrasymachus tries to end the conversation by leaving after he has made his comments, but Socrates and his companions do not let him go, asking: “…do you suppose you are trying to determine a small matter and not a course of life on the basis of which each of us would have the most profitable existence (344e)”. Socrates is pointing out the seriousness of the matter. Arguing and debating is not about “winning” the argument or making a good point, it is about learning the truth, for we live our lives according to what we believe. If we are mistaken about how to rule ourselves well, then we will live poorly. So it is important to keep digging into the argument to discover whether it is true or not. Also, Plato is revealing what The Republic is really about. It is about deciding how you ought to live your life.

 

Socrates then asks an odd question: do you think rulers rule willingly? To which Thrasymachus answers as we would: of course they do. Socrates then goes back to Thrasymachus’ argument that the ruled do it for the benefits they receive, rather than for the sake of ruling itself. That is, if it were the case that you couldn’t benefit yourself by ruling, then people wouldn’t rule. Just as a shepherd that didn’t get to benefit from selling or slaughtering sheep wouldn’t shepherd just for the sake of the sheep. So, he is forcing us to conclude that the act of ruling is distinct from any personal benefit that results from it. Consequently, justice cannot be the advantage of the rulers. For that would be like saying that justice is the wages a doctor gets for performing a surgery or the benefits a shepherd gets from selling sheep. If rulers don’t benefit from the act of ruling, then, they wouldn’t rule willingly. In order to get people to rule, you would need to provide some other reason for them to do so, such as wages.

 

Interestingly, Socrates also adds another incentive to rule, or, rather a disincentive to avoid ruling. He says you could penalize people who aren’t willing to rule. This is very, very odd. Imagine suggesting this for plumbers or doctors. If you don’t fix my pipes, I will fine you. If you don’t perform surgeries, we will punish you. Socrates goes on to explain, however, that what he means is this: “…the greatest of penalties is being ruled by a worse man if one is not willing to rule oneself (347c)”. That is, the wages for ruling is living in a well-governed society. The way this sentence is structured, however, there is another interpretation, which goes to a later point in the book. This could, of course, just be a translation issue, but it is worth considering, just in case. The end of the sentence ends with “ruling oneself,” which can also mean if you are not willing to rule yourself. That is, you can order your own life, or, you can leave it to others to order your life or a worse self to order you life. If you do not consciously order your own life, the penalty is that a worse self will order your life.

 

But before we leave this, I think it is important to get clear about what is really going on here. For Socrates and Thrasymachus are using the word “justice” slightly differently. Socrates is using it in an aspirational sense, that is, he is asking, “how ought one act to live a moral life.” Whereas Thrasymachus is using it to mean what is traditionally taken as justice. He is, essentially, defining justice by what society thinks justice is, regardless of whether they have got it right or not. For it is certainly true that we can be led to believe that justice is something that it is not. The rulers can, in fact, bend justice to mean that which serves their own interests or the interests of society. But Socrates is not interested in this justice, he is actually interested in what justice really is. Socrates is seeking the truth. He does not assume that the world is in possession of the truth, so he has to keep asking questions. Thrasymachus has accepted that justice is defined by society. It is not the job of the philosopher to figure out what others think justice is, but to figure out what it actually is. Thrasymachus is stuck using society’s opinions of things.

 

To Thrasymachus, justice is the word the rulers use to get the people to behave in a manner that benefits them. Justice makes sheep of people. Or batteries, according to the Matrix. To be a just man is to be a sucker. It is to serve someone else. Therefore, to act unjustly is to act in one’s own interest. So, in a society in which justice is that which favours the rulers, injustice is a virtue. But what does this have to do with rulers anymore? Thrasymachus is essentially saying that the world is unjust. Doesn’t that mean that he should be able to define justice in opposition to the current state of affairs? If the rulers have co-opted the word “justice” in their service, then true justice would mean rulers that serve society, rather than themselves. Why doesn’t he make this argument? Instead, he goes down the path of defending people who abuse the word “justice” by using it to mean “what is to their own advantage.”

 

Socrates wastes no time in countering Thrasymachus on this point. He leads Thrasymachus to the realization that the unjust are at war with one another and an unjust man is at war with himself, for if to be unjust means to give the finger to those who try to rule, then only anarchy can result, for cooperation among the unjust is impossible. Essentially, Socrates is revealing that Thrasymachus is making an argument for selfishness. Thrasymachus is getting flustered and stops trying to resist, to save face, or his honour, since if he doesn’t try, he can’t be said to have lost. But Socrates is not satisfied with this approach, saying: “…the argument is not about just any question, but about the way one should live (352d)”. Again, Socrates, the philosopher, is seeking the actual truth, for he needs it to live a good life, whereas for Thrasymachus, he seeks to win arguments not for the benefits that arguing brings, but the wages that it brings, such as honour. Socrates argues for the sake of what the argument reveals.
Finally, we are brought to the conclusion of the argument between Thrasymachus and Socrates. Socrates turns Thrasymachus’ argument upside down, showing that justice is good and leads to a good life, and injustice its opposite. But this does not satisfy him. He looks back over the argument and claims that they have been sidetracked, which is, I think what the reader feels. I think this is the problem with Thrasymachus’ argument: he started from what society takes justice to mean instead of actually considering it for himself. Socrates is now preparing to go back and start fresh. But he is beaten to it.