Tharsymachus View of Justice in The Republic Essay

Tharsymachus View of Justice in The Republic - Essay ExamplePhilosophy started and developed in ancient Greece. The development and advancement achieved in the field of philosophy by Greeks is amazing. There are many great names in this field only three names standout. All of these three great sages are connected with each other as teacher and student. Socrates was the teacher of Plato and Plato the teacher of Aristotle. Socrates did non save up anything. His able student Plato wrote the ideas of Socrates in his famous book The Republic. The book starts with the discussion of the effects of old age and how people feel. From this point the discussion moves on to the idea of arbitrator. At first the idea of jurist is equated with honesty. This idea is rejected by Socrates on the ground that it is impossible to be just and honest at the same time. The idea is further discussed and Polemarchus states that justice is helping friends and harming enemies but this air is rejected on the basis that a good person can do no harm to anyone. This definition is partly accepted as it is overcompensate to help friends. After rejecting the above mentioned definitions of justice Thrasymachus is very much annoyed. According to him Socrates is not answering any question and only posing questions. This is easy but the real task is to answer the question. Socrates defends his position by stating that since he does not grapple accordingly it is difficult for him to answer and only with the help of learned people like Thrasymachus the answer to the question may be given. Thrasymachus is represented as a Sophist and in typical Sophists style he asks for money. Sophists were the first who charged money for education and they were the teachers who used to teach philosophy and empty words to young Greeks. Thrasymachus also wants money for his answer as he states that he can answer the question. The whole company along with Socrates pleads Thrasymachus to state the definition of ju stice and not worry about money. Thrasymachus states that justice is that which serves the interests of the stronger. Socrates finds the definition unclear and therefore he asks questions from Thrasymachus. In order to make the point clear, Thrasymachus states that there are unalike forms of governments i.e. aristocracy, democracy and tyranny. There are different laws governing these states and in all of them it is just to abide by these laws and unjust to break them. Since laws are made by rulers keeping in view their own interests therefore laws are for the interest of the rulers. From this it is obvious that justice is the interest of the strong. Everyone acts for ones own benefit and therefore it is natural that strong will act for his own interest. Since government is the strongest of all therefore whatever it makes it will be for the betterment of government. For Thrasymachus here government is capable to strong therefore he believes that justice is the interest of the stron g. Superficially this definition seems to be right as whatever a person does it seems just and right to him therefore he is acting in that particular manner but this is very weak and unrealistic approach to define justice. The objection on this argument came from Socrates. He contends that it is possible for rulers to make error therefore it is also possible that the laws made by them may not always be in the respect of strong. Unintentionally the strong can make laws in the interest of weak. This is possible due to faulty thinking of strong. Thrasymachus rejects this by stating that he considers ruler in finished state. If ruler is making mistake then he is no more ruler. By stating this Thrasymachus again repeats his view that justice is for the interest of strong. For him the ruler is in hone state and he cannot make mistake. Whatever law such perfect ruler will make it will be for his interest therefore justice will serve the interest of the strong. At this point the position of Thrasymachus looks strong and clear. He seems to