The Republic 3/19

Q) Notice that our reading on Thrasymachus is divided into two parts. The first part is entitled – “First Statement and Criticisms”. In this first part, what are Socrates’ main argument(s) against the idea that justice is whatever the strong (i.e. the government) says it is?

A.) He is basically stating that the leaders are always making decisions for their own liking. Therefore making whatever they say the law and anyone opposing it is against the law. If a leader gives a bad order and damages/hurts anyone it is against the law but since the leader said it is not. It is weird how stuff can counteract with each other.

Q) In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymachus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?

A.) Thrasymarchus’ two main points are that 'justice is the interest of the stronger party' and that injustice is the interest and profit of oneself'. I cant really remember what Socrates said in return.

Q.) In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymarchus say in response to your answer?

A.) In my opinion I don’t really think it is ever right to harm anyone. There are only few times when it is right though, as in self defense for example. If you are out on the streets and you are being robbed and hit you will not just stand there and take the pain, your first instinct will be to attack back. I think Socrates would say that if it was never right to harm anyone the person robbing would not think of hurting you.