Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The issues of justice and fair state organization have attracted politicians and philosophers attention throughout the years and generations. Their understanding largely influences the ruling styles in every country, therefore defining the life quality and distribution of wealth in it. Among the numerous ancient interpretations in this field, it is worth mentioning the discussion contained in the «Republic» by Plato. The three interlocutors found in the book express entirely different views, each of which demonstrates a valid position to some extent. Combined with the critical remarks given by Socrates, they form the grounds for a profound contemplation of the principles of justice and their applicability for the countrys politics. Still, the definition given by Thrasymachus appears to be the most controversial and relevant for todays world, therefore deserving a specific review.
The primary interpretation of justice expressed by Thrasymachus is that it should benefit the strong. This implies the moral right of the more powerful members of society to take away the benefits of the weaker ones. Such a point of view leaves no room for the ideas of equality as a fair state arrangement, which were expressed by other interlocutors. Besides, even the question of how the mighty ones obtain their powers and execute them does not make any difference. As Rosen notes, what counts is that everywhere people in power determine what is just based on their self-interest (43). Thrasymachus considers all forms of political regimes, such as democracy and tyranny, equally legitimate. The ruling class is viewed as the most deserved part of society, and its members are welcome to exercise their rights at the expense of others.
The definition of justice is further supported by the ideas about how the rules should be formed and implemented. The primary grounds for ensuring fairness in society are laws established by the ruling class to its advantage (Rosen 41). Such legislation serves to protect the interests of the wealthy population, and everybody must strictly abide by it. The moral aspects do not deserve any attention or review. Since any doctrines limiting the powers of the ruling class are developed by the weak, they should be viewed as a threat to successful state development. This emphasizes the interlocutors appraisal of a mighty government with an autocratical political style, which places the achievements of the country above the benefits of its citizens.
Despite the fact that such an interpretation may at first appear outdated, it still manifests itself in the political forms of many nations throughout the world. Numerous countries are still led by autocratic rulers, and their laws reflect the interests of a small group of those who have the powers. Moreover, in many cases, such an approach is regarded as a traditional one and supported by a large population share. Giving some small benefits to the ordinary people and making them follow the regulations strictly without questioning them, the rulers make the systems they build strong and sustainable. Besides, the understanding of justice as the power of the strong is even more relevant for international politics. In this case, most nations pursue their interest as far as their power allows (Rosen 43). The limitations and fairness principles, established by various international bodies, are easily violated by the mighty countries. Therefore, the interpretation of justice given by Thrasymachus remains valid in many instances of todays political life.
Although the definition being reviewed still demonstrates its relevance throughout the world, it certainly contradicts fundamental moral and logical aspects. The primary point used by Socrates in his refutation is the indication of self-contradiction in the views expressed by Thrasymachus. Since the latter mentions that the strong should do what benefits them, he implies that they know their interests. However, there are many cases when they are mistaken in their actions, which results in their behavior becoming unjust. Moreover, the question appears concerning what knowledge is necessary for a person to be aware of ones benefits. It is not the art to persuade, which may easily allow a person to substitute the real goals with the false ones. Thus, justice requires overall competence, which becomes essential for leaders to succeed. Finally, Socrates raises the issue of the actual ruling goals. Comparing it with the art of medicine, where the aim is to cure a sick patient, he infers that it should benefit the subjects, not the ruler (Rosen 47). All this refutation undermines the foundations of Thrasymachuss approach and demonstrates that inequality and abuse of ones rights should not be considered justice.
To conclude, the idea of justice as the power of the strong to pursue their benefits has always been popular among the leaders of various countries. Expressed by Thrasymachus in its extreme manifestation, it reveals its setbacks and possible negative consequences. As noted by Socrates in his refutation, its deficiencies range from technical aspects of obtaining the necessary knowledge to the idea of proper understanding of the ruling purposes. The review of this interpretation of justice is precious for building a fair society where laws and moral values combine for the benefit of everybody.
Work Cited
Rosen, Stanley. Platos Republic: A Study. Yale University Press, 2008.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.