Due Tuesday, 3/20 Republic Assignment

1. 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?

Socrates states that it would be a foolish way for things to be. Most politicians and leaders are always making decisions for their best interest, meaning what is in their best interest is the law, and anything else is against the law. But, if a leader gives an order by accident that hurts them, then it is against the law, but the leader gave the order so the people must obey it. It is cryptic talk of how backwards things would be in that case.

2. In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?

Thrasymachus' two main points are that 'justice is the interest of the stronger party' and that 'injustice is the interest and profit of oneself'.

Socrates respondes with the points that 'no one really wants authority and with it the job of righting other people's wrongs, unless paid for it' and also that 'all wise men would prefer the benefit of this service at the hands of others rather than the labor of affording it to others themselves'.

3. In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not?

I dont think there is EVER an appropiate time to hurt someone. Unless you must, like if you are being attacked. But i dont think that it is right to hurt someone because of what they said to you or your friend. I think most things can be solved with talking it out. I wish this is how things would be solved, unfortunatly i dont think that anyone could never harm anyone. Because if you think about it you can harm someone without ever laying a finger on them.