Lecture Notes: Dialogue on Justice - Socrates vs. Thrasymachus

Setting

• Socrates is in a house discussing justice.
• Previously debated with Polemarchus about justice as benefiting friends and harming enemies.
• Thrasymachus, a sophist, challenges Socrates to define justice.
• Sophists are paid teachers, unlike Socrates who questions people without payment.

Thrasymachus’ Argument

• Justice is what is advantageous for the stronger.
  • Example: Cities are ruled by rulers (the stronger) who make laws beneficial to themselves.
  • Democracies, tyrannies, etc., make laws to their advantage.
  • Subjects are considered unjust if they don't follow these laws.

Socrates’ Counter-Argument

1. Obedience to Rulers

   • Questions if it is just to obey rulers if they err.
   • Rulers can make incorrect laws that are not advantageous.
   • Therefore, it can be just to do what is not advantageous for the stronger.

2. Error in Ruling

   • Thrasymachus claims rulers, like craftsmen, don’t err in their craft.
   • Socrates challenges this by defining crafts as perfect.
     • A doctor treats the sick; being paid is separate from the craft itself.
     • Crafts are advantageous for their subjects, not themselves.
   • Concludes that rulers, to the extent they are rulers, work for the advantage of their subjects.

Conclusion

• Socrates disputes the idea that justice is what benefits the stronger.

Critical Consideration

• Encourages critical thinking and evaluation of arguments.
• Reminder: Agreement with Plato's arguments is not mandatory.

Additional Notes

• Further elaboration on Socratic method and discussions may follow in future sessions.
• Audience encouraged to share thoughts and request further content.

---

These notes provide a structured summary of the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the dialogue on justice between Socrates and Thrasymachus.