In Book 1 of ‘The Republic’ by Plato, Thrasymachus puts forth a new definition of what justice is after both Cephalus’ and Polemarchus’ definitions were successively countered by Socrates. Socrates, as is expected, counters Thrasymachus’ argument. While Thrasymachus argues the traditional sophist view to do away with justice seeing as it hinders one’s opportunities, Socrates poses as the opposition and counters all of his opponent’s arguments.
According to Thrasymachus, justice is “the advantage of the stronger”. The stronger being he who has more power and/or riches. He argues that when acting justly, you are not benefiting yourself but rather others. In other words, justice is not universally beneficial; it helps only a select few rather. Thrasymachus points out that if you are not…show more content… Thrasymachus also acknowledges that those who act unjustly will be able to become the powerful and strong rulers of society since they have the courage to go against/bend the law and be able to outthink weaker men. The unjust man is able to cheat on his taxes, embezzle money, and deceit the public since he is able to take advantage of the weak. On the other hand, those who have non-important roles in society are weak since they are act in accordance with the laws (justly) and are too cowardly to stand up to the strong man. This is seen when you look at rulers of an area/country, or its government. The rulers of society are in charge of creating laws for all citizens of the state, but when creating these laws, they make sure that they insure self-advancement or at the very least the laws do not harm their creators. This can be seen in even our modern day democratic governments by that in