The Just Versus the Unjust

    Throughout the first two books, it is very evident that there is a disagreement on a particular subject. This is the subject of the Just and the Unjust and which is the superior of the two. There are two characters debating this subject both arguing that their side is best, however, both sides cannot be correct in this matter. If they were, then they would contradict themselves. The character Socrates is all for Justice and believes that it is a noble and virtuous way of living that will be better for you in the long run. However, the character Thrasymachus is all for the Unjust way of living and all that it can accomplish for you in the present. They talk about whether it is good for a body to just be a body, or whether it needs something else to be satisfactory. This is mentioned in reference to a body needing a way of life, whether just or unjust and which would be better for the body to survive.

    Thrasymachus’ outlook on justice is that it is “really the good of another, what is advantageous for the stronger and the ruler, and harmful to the one who obeys and serves” (343c). He believes that just men will always get less than an unjust man. He tries to justify his outlook on the Just versus the Unjust by first saying that when a just man is in a contract with an unjust man, “you will never find, when a partnership ends, that the just one gets more than the unjust, but less”(343d). Secondly, he says that when a just and unjust man has to pay their taxes, “the just man pays more on an equal amount of property, an unjust one less; but when the city is giving out refunds, a just man gets nothing while an unjust one makes a large profit”(343d). Lastly, he says “when each of them holds a political office, a just person- even if he is not penalized in other ways-finds that his private affairs deteriorate more because he has to neglect them, that he gains no advantage from the public purse because of his justice, and that he is hated by his relatives and acquaintances because he is unwilling to do them an unjust favor”(343e). He goes on to say that he believes that “injustice, if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterful than justice”(344c).I would have to agree with Thrasymachus that all of his point are very valid, however I would not be so quick to say that the cons of being just, outweigh the pros of being unjust because of the official outcome (referring to the afterlife).

    Socrates believe that being a just person is the best way to be because a just person does not focus on what exactly is best for himself as an individual, but he looks out for the best interest of others. We understand this when he says “I do not believe that injustice is more profitable than justice, not even if you should give it full scope to do what it wants. Suppose, my good fellow that there is an unjust person, and suppose he does have the power to do injustice, whether by covert means or open warfare;nonetheless, he does not persuade me that injustice is more profitable than justice”(345a). I believe one-hundred percent in what Socrates is saying and I also believe that it is most definitely the best way for a human to live.  He also believes that a just person does not strive to be better than another just person. We see this demonstrated when he says “Then let’s put it this way: a just person does not do better than someone like himself, but someone unlike himself, whereas an unjust person does better than those who are like and those who are unlike him”(349d).

    Of the two I identify most with the outlook of Socrates because although being an unjust person can sometimes be more beneficial for a person materialistically and immediately, I believe that being a just person will not only show how great of character you have now, but it will be more beneficial for a person after life as well. In conclusion, Socrates and Thrasymachus both make very good points, however I believe that Socrates is speaking the most truthful and beneficial way for a person to be and live.