Thrasymachus's Theory Of Justice Analysis

Both of these are virtues in their own right and though we don’t really expect virtues to clash, these two do exactly that and this clash gives rise to a bigger problem. People expect those in positions of power to be both just and merciful at the same time without realizing that it is near impossible to do so. For example, a judge who is about to deliver a verdict to a criminal convicted of a minor crime who genuinely appears repentant is expected to do the right thing and sentence him with an appropriate punishment and at the same time show a little mercy towards the criminal and reduce the sentence. Most people fail to realize that justice and mercy are not the same and this puts said person in a position of power in a no-win situation. If he tries to be merciful and reduces the sentence, he is seen as lenient, while if he tries to be just and sentences the criminal to his just desserts, he is seen to be as strict or harsh. As mentioned previously, these two concepts are intrinsically different and are at odds with each other, therefore leading to ethical conflicts, which then raises the question

He believed that justice was decided based on the interests of those with power. Rulers and governments would only make rules and laws that would benefit them and there was no justice except in favour of power. Again, the strong had complete control over what was considered right and wrong. Those in power would only introduce laws that would further their own agendas and those who dared to violate those laws were harshly punished in the name of justice. Thrasymachus clashed with Socrates in terms of ideology about justice. He believed that injustice brought happiness and considered it to be a source of strength and contended with Socrates saying that an individual who is unjust is superior in both intelligence and character to an individual who is just by