Comparing Thrasymachus 'And Socrates' Definition Of Justice

In the house of Polemarchus, Socrates and his colleague, Thrasymachus share their wisdom on the definition of justice. The scene is set for a mighty debate that will be discussed for centuries after this event. Thrasymachus, unsatisfied with Socrates’s rebuttal to Polemarchus’s definition of justice, pounces at the opportunity to have the upper hand on the great philosopher, and prove himself the wiser. Socrates, who just bested Cephalus and Polemarchus decides to entertain Thrasymachus and hear his interpretation of justice. A wager is made and the debate begins. Both philosophers argue their position fairly well, but I suggest that their arguments are lacking the component of love and justice.
Now Thrasymachus was a sophist. Sophist were
He heard Thraymachus’s argument and saw that it was flawed. Socrates responds with a discussion of art or craft and points out that its aim is to do what is good for its subjects, not what is good for the practitioner (341c). Thrasymachus suggests that some arts, such as that of shepherds, do not do this but rather aim at the advantage of the practitioner (343c). He also adds the claim that injustice is in every way better than justice and that the unjust person who commits injustice undetected is always happier than the just person (343e-344c). This is where the philosophers disagree on the virtues of justice. Thrasymachus believes that as long as it is in your own best intrest you are just. Socrates says that those who are virtuous are also just and they should be leaders. The paradigm of the happy unjust person is the tyrant who is able to satisfy all his desires (344a-b). For how long will a system stand if the “stronger” is always right and will always make the right decisions for himself rather than the people. Socrates points out that the shepherd’s concern for his sheep is different from his concern to make money, which is extraneous to the art (345c) and that no power or art provides what is beneficial to itself (346e). Socrates claims that the best rulers are reluctant to rule but do so out of necessity: they do not wish to be ruled by someone inferior
Such as where does love and compassion fall into Thrasychus’s very self-centered definition of justice? Also is love and compassion in a society where decision are based only on what is good for the people. Can the “stronger” lead based on love? From a Christian perspective the answer is yes, the “stronger” is God. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16 NIV) God showed his love through giving up his son, Jesus, whom through Thraymachus’s view of justice, benefited from by receiving followers and being the salvation to the world. With the Socratic view of justice, Jesus as the messiah was to benefit the people. Those who live according to His will receive the love of Christ and salvation in heaven. Can it be said that the son of God who died for the sin of man, conquered death, and now sits on the throne did this not out of necessity nor because he was the strongest and wanted to benefit himself but because he loved humanity. The Lord tells us to do all things in love. Whether leader or citizen we must allow love to define justice. If the people show love to the leader and benefit him through various ways. The leader can show loves to the people by administering justice that benefit everyone. What better way to administer justice