Aristotle and Thrasymachus Aristotle's theory of moral virtue presents a challenge to the view of Thrasymachus that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Thrasymachus believes that it does not pay to be just, and that justice in and of itself is a flawed concept. When a person behaves justly, that works to the advantage of other people who reap benefits from it, not to the advantage of the person who acts in a just manner. He argues that a person's natural desire is to have more, and that justice goes against that and becomes an unnatural restraint. However, his argument is flawed and can be easily challenged. This is done through many of the statements Aristotle makes in Ethics. For example, Aristotle says that "…the lovers of what is noble find pleasant the things that are by nature pleasant; and virtuous actions are such, so that these are pleasant for such men as well as in their own nature" (Bk I). Being just and virtuous, therefore, are not at all advantages of the strong, but instead are joys and pleasantries for those who seek these...

There he is indicating that Thrasymachus cannot be correct because there is more than one meaning for justice, and that meaning is not simple. While justice might be an advantage of the stronger in some cases, it could easily have a different meaning in another situation or context. He wants those who read his words to see the value in being just, as opposed to looking for ways to use it to oppress others or themselves in some way. Justice is about happiness and freedom, not about constraint and rules. While Thrasymachus is very black and white about what he believes regarding justice, Aristotle is much more open regarding what justice can, could, and should mean to people. With that openness comes an understanding that Thrasymachus does not possess.
Justice can certainly be used and practiced by the strong, often to get societal benefit, but not every…