Thrasymachus Vs Socrates

Among the thinkers we have studied in class, we can divide their views on political justice into two major categories: those who believe justice is what the ruler says it is, and those who believe justice is part of a higher “moral code” independent of the ruler. Thrasymachus and Hobbes believe that the powerful dictate law and order. On the other hand, Aristotle, Polemarchus, Socrates, and Plato believe that justice cannot be influenced by those of the ruler. I believe the best account of political justice is a combination of a few thinkers including those of Thrasymachus, Aristotle, and Plato. This account would borrow Thrasymachus’s idea that those who have power dictate justice; Aristotle’s idea that the well-being of the community would be better than the prosperity of the individual; Plato’s idea that justice is merely an instrumental value. The approach of Thrasymachus and Hobbes on the claim that justice comes from power could be described as quite similar. Thrasymachus recognizes the possibility of three possible regimes. But no
Aristotle believed that citizens needed to participate in the government to live a good life. He concludes people are “political animals” giving people their sense of humanity. He even uses this to make an argument for why slaves should be allowed by stating that everyone needs to have a ruler and that those who are unable to rule themselves through a lack of rationality needs to be ruled by others.(Aristotle 8) This is an extremely weak argument as he immediately argues how slaves need to have enough rationality to carry out their master’s orders. This seemingly contradicts his own argument of a lack of rationality. However due to the circumstances and views of society during these times, he could not see the contradictions in his own