The Lack of Justice in Nature
The lack of justice in nature
The nature of justice and the reasoning behind behaving justly has been a philosophical debate for centuries. Various philosophers have argued a multitude of perspectives and contradictions that define what justice truly is. Plato, the author of “The Republic”, provides various viewpoints about the nature of justice through his characters, Socrates and Thrasymachus, who have contradicting ideas. Thrasymachus, the moral skeptic who poses as a Sophist, believes that the nature of justice is merely nothing but a concept created by humans that benefits the stronger, and actually imposes on the natural desire to acquire more.
As a moral skeptic, Thrasymachus challenges the value of justice by claiming there actually is no natural order. He holds the belief of conventionalism, which states that justice are laws made by humans. Thrasymachus asserts that natural order and the concept of “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.” (338c) He indicates that they are a set of rules determined by the elite in order to keep their power and protect their own interest. Society emulates people with a hierarchy position, and have a certain level of respect for them which Thrasymachus emphasizes is nonsense. Through gaining peoples admiration, the powerful are able to solidify their positions and continue setting rules. In paragraph 338e, he describes lawmakers and how depending on the type of government, laws are made to promote its advantages and punish those who rebel against the establishment. The established rule is always at an advantage because it makes rules in favor of the current government. He states that the majority of people are not powerful enough to live an unjust life because they have been taught to believe that “just” is good. Thrasymachus rejects the common perception of justice, which indicates that people who exercise justice and morality will lead a happy, satisfying life. He demonstrates if one can avoid being just, they should at all costs, and provides the example of taxpayers whp pat the consequences of acting justly. If a person lies on their taxes, they will acquire more than the person who is honest. He exemplifies that through lying, people become more profitable, which is why people should prefer injustice. Thrasymachus implies that one should be just only to manipulate others because it gains their respect which leads to more power. Thrasymachus believes that humans have an innate desire to want more, and acting unjustly generates people to accumulate the greater possessions they desire. In his point of view, the individual should rid oneself of all moral obligations and to, instead, live an “unjust” life that primarily benefits themselves.
Socrates holds a counterargument to Thrasymachuss skepticism by exemplifying that living justly is beneficial to themselves