Thrasymachus and Glaucon on justice and ruler infallibility in Plato's Republic

Cornford's Translation Of Plato's Republic

Thrasymachus Contend that Rulers Cannot Make Mistakes

According to Thrasymachus, justice is nothing else but the advantage of the stronger. The stronger is any powerful individual who can make decisions, which are followed by the followers without asking any questions concerning the decisions made. Rulers will make laws favoring their interests and ignore the interests of their subjects or public, as they believe that whatever the laws they make the subjects or public should obey (Cornford, 1941). According to Thrasymachus, rulers are powerful people and no will challenge them because they cannot make mistakes in any leadership they offer or any legislations they make concerning the subjects. When Socrates challenged him, he continues claiming that justice is doing anything advantageous to the stronger. Thrasymachus is not happy about Socrates protestation claiming that Socrates should give his position on the definition of justice and not criticize the views and definitions of other people.

Thrasymachus argued that rulers could not make a mistake because they are in control of everything, and the subjects should follow and participate in all the instructions from the ruler. Throughout his presentation on the definition of justice, Thrasymachus wanted to be recognized as the person of interest concerning the definition of justice. It is because he gave his explanations in parts such that the audiences can be more inquisitive, and he can get time to explain and elaborate more on the meaning of justice (Cornford, 1941). When Socrates and others criticized him, Thrasymachus explained further that tyranny, some by democracy, and others by an aristocracy rule different states. Each of the states considered the rulers as a strong person because they could make any decision without being criticized. In all these leadership styles portrayed by the rulers, each of the leaders made laws to their advantage and declare them to their subjects. Any subject or individual who does not obey the laws made by the rule would be punished as the lawless and unjust. Thrasymachus did not succeed in his argument as Socrates criticized him to an extent that a neutral body was formed to determine when the leader is right or wrong and when he has made a mistake or no mistake in his ruling.

Glaucon Story of Gyges

The story of Gyges started when Glaucon wanted Socrates to defend the just life and the defense to show preferred to injustice intrinsically. Glaucon proposed to present the defense of injustice for the sake of argument. In his argument, Glaucon began by asserting that many people find it good or desirable to inflict wrongdoings on others the wrongdoers on the receiving end are regarded as undesirable. When people are on both ends of misdeeds receiving and giving, they will easily realize the pains of being a victim are more than the pains of being the victimizer (Cornford, 1941). To avoid all these situations of being victims, people decide to come together and form agreements and the agreements were dubbed with the name justice. Glaucon argued and made clear that people do not enter into agreements, which give rise to justice willingly, and the situation is not seen as the best. Glaucon further regarded justice as something that is most desirable to an individual and something, which is most undesirable for the individual. Glaucon concluded by saying that people accept justice because of their weakness while the person with all the powers to carry out all the misdeeds successfully would be a fool if he/she would not do it in the position.

Glaucon decided to tell the story of the ring of Gyges to support his claims that no individual is willingly following Justice, and any person who is free to unjust would be unjust. The story is about the shepherd Gyges who found a magical ring of invisibility in a strange bronze horse that had been exposed by the earthquake. Shepherd Gyges used the power of the ring to seduce the queen and with the help of the queen; he murdered the king and took over the control of the realm. From the tale, Glaucon concluded that if identical rings were given to unjust man and a just man, both men would act unjustly (Cornford, 1941). It proved to his satisfaction that they are acting justly only when they are under compulsion. By nature, Glaucon claims that it is obvious that all human beings desire more than what they are due in their life. Despite the expression, Glaucon considered that there is a possibility that an individual might refuse to use the ring in performing misdeeds. However, such a person would be praised in all ways to his/her face, and he/she would be regarded as a fool for refusing to use power in his/her possession.

Physical Training Benefits One's Mind Or Soul

According to Socrates, physical training benefits one' mind or soul because after every training one will acquire some knowledge and skills, which he/she will apply personally in making decisions, leading other people or performing any other activity. In the case of ruling and making laws, the ruler needs knowledge and skills concerning ruling and making laws, which he/she will acquire through physical training (Cornford, 1941). After the ruler completes physical training, it will benefit his/her soul or mind because he/she will apply the acquired skills in making laws and ruling personally without the help any other person. The same applies to the doctor, craftsman, and artisan, as they will acquire knowledge and skills through physical training, which will remain in their mind or soul and they will apply it when performing various activities relation to treatment, production of crafts, and arts activities respectively.

Socrates says belief can pass out of one's mind without letting let it go

Beliefs are certain activities individuals or groups of people perform in a community, any other place they are residing, or gathering. Belief will pass out of the individuals mind without his/her knowledge when exposed to other different beliefs or practices (Cornford, 1941). According to Socrates, the emergence of other beliefs or different ways of doing things the current beliefs of wild individual pass out of their minds unknowingly or unwillingly. Thrasymachus, as well as other people in Plato and other cities, are the stronger, and they make laws as per their interest ignoring the interest of their subjects. The subjects are forced to accept the rules or laws or be punished for failing to do son.

Socrates is against such beliefs, and he argues that the beliefs will pass out of the minds of the rulers and their supporters without letting them go. It is because when the rulers and their supports are exposed to other suggestions and beliefs that rulers should have knowledge and skills of ruling to rule, it will change their current beliefs without them noticing. Thrasymachus to some extent accepted the argument of Socrates that the rulers should have certain skills for them to rule because of continuous exposure and explanation of the relation between rulers, laws, and the subjects throughout the presentations (Cornford, 1941). It is a prove that when Thrasymachus, rulers, and other supporters are exposed to other beliefs, they current beliefs on ruling will pass out of their minds without letting them go or unwillingly.

Reference

Cornford, F. M. (1941). The Republic of Plato: Translated with Introduction and Notes. London: Oxford University Press