Plato: The Republic

The Republic is a book by Plato which resembles a lengthy discussion that centres on

the argument that Socrates, the argument's advocate, is advancing. In this discussion, Plato

seeks to intellectually define the ideal state, one that would serve as a template for all

developing or established civilizations operating in Plato's day and continuing into the

present day. And it follows that any suggested adjustments to the way justice is administered

in any state must comply with the standards of the ideal state, the Republic. The book is

structured in the form of dialogues where Socrates and another character are in the

conversation and the main theme of the book is around justice as Plato intended to establish

an ideal state for both his current and future times. In Book I section of The Republic

different characters define their version of justice through their conversation with Socrates.

This paper discusses how Thrasymachus view of justice is better than the Polemarchus view

of justice.

Polemarchus’ Justice

Polemarchus idea of justice is simple as he says justice is “to give to each man what is

proper to him and what is due” (Bloom and Plato p. 332d). According to Polemarchus

definition of justice it is a trivial art. Polemarchus is tasked by Socrates with outlining the

positive and negative effects that justice may have. Since great keepers can be the greatest

thieves and since justice, per Polemarchus' description, seems to be the trade of custodians of

things not in use, especially money and property, one may argue that justice is both an art of

protecting and an art of stealing. This is the case because the arts only provide knowledge,

not what we would refer to as just intentions. Polemarchus did not imply that a fair man is a

knowing and skilled ally in warfare or a skilled partner in creating peace when he said that

justice is valuable in war. He was implying that the just person is an excellent companion to
have because of his loyalty and dependability. However, this would mean that thieves are

also just as they are good at stealing money. Therefore, this shows that Polemarchus

definition has unclarity.

Furthermore, Polemarchus claims that justice consists of helping one's friends and

hurting one's foes. This definition of justice is again vague as Polemarchus is not sure who

friends are. According to Polemarchus, friends are those who are good and helpful to us. But

we should harm our enemies as they are harmful to us. However, justice is human virtue. A

just person can never harm another person even if that person is harmful to them.

Thrasymachus’ Justice

Socrates believes that justice is a positive and important component of life and the

ideal society. Thrasymachus sets out to vigorously refute this claim. Thrasymachus develops

three main claims about justice during the discussion. These assertions include his views that

"justice is truly the good of another and damaging to the one who obeys and serves," "it is

just to obey the rulers," and "it is just to obey the stronger" (Bloom and Plato p. 338c). While

Thrasymachus strives to explain his positions, Socrates repeatedly questions these assertions

utilising what is now referred to as the "Socratic technique" of questioning.  According to

Thrasymachus, laws are made by the stronger people in society, who also define what is right

in the eyes of the general populace. Thrasymachus believes that people who behave justly or

believe in justice are the ones who lose out since they do not gain from their actions. He

believed that the only person who could administer justice was the city's ruler. According to

Thrasymachus, injustice might exist since no one would ever aspire to or behave in a right

manner. As a result, a city of individuals who support injustice would be created.

As opposed to Polemarchus view of justice, Thrasymachus has a more defined view

of justice. He clearly identifies three definitions of justice: i) the people in power make laws,
ii) weaker party must obey those laws and iii) justice is obedience to law made by people in

power in the interests of them. Unlike the definition of Polemarchus which is unclear and

vague as he only mentions justice as giving each man what is due and right.

Furthermore, elements of Thrasymachus’ definition are still believed till date such as

justice is obeying the rules of law. According to Thrasymachus, the reason why the ruling

body across every political situation enacts laws that benefit the rulers is because it is more

powerful than the common people. The ruler has the authority to punish lawbreakers, set

rules for their own advantage (Bloom and Plato p.338e), take away property belonging to

others (Bloom and Plato p.344a), abduct, and enslave a large number of people (Bloom and

Plato p.344b). All these elements of definition hold true till date as in many countries’ rulers

are strong because they have power to make or break the laws and the common people have

to obey those rules because they are weaker. In essence, the definition by Thrasymachus

made more sense than Polemarchus as justice, even today, lies with the stronger people and

people of power.
 Works Cited

Bloom, Allan and Plato. The Republic of Plato: Second Edition. 2nd ed., Basic Books, 1991.