Words: 1229
He believes injustice is far more profitable, especially in cases where injustice is done in disguise of justice. According to him, a clever man is one who can do injustice without paying penalty but reaping in its benefits. This definition Of justice is not in accord with Socrates’, who refutes it with much discontent by Trashcans. He is accused of being a sycophant in addition to not being capable of answering anything but only to provide refutations to any opinion mentioned before him (ICC).
Trashcans is begged not to leave the conversation and to stay and discuss what he has just revealed to come to conclusion as to what justice really entails. To discuss what Trashcans first defines justice as, Socrates points out that rulers of any city are fallible and can make mistakes (ICC). Hence, in any case, there is a chance of a certain ruler of a certain state to, unknowingly, set down laws which are, in fact, not advantageous to them. This contradicts Trashcans’ argument that Justice’ is a tool for the ruler’s own benefit.
To counter Socrates’ assertion, Treacherous in anger, adjusts his theory to add the fact that rulers do not make mistakes (IEEE). Socrates leaves that argument to discuss other aspects of Tracheotomy’s tenement. Socrates uses the analogy of the arts (art of medicine, or the art of sailing) to describe the Cart’ of ruling. He explains that in each of these arts, the advantage of the art is to the benefactor of the art, not to the artist (341 e). The artist is the money maker and that, to Socrates, is the supplementary art.
However, for any ruler to succeed at the art of ruling, he must therefore look for the advantage of the ruled, the citizens of the state, just as a doctor looks to benefit the body he is to cure (34th). Therefore the aim of every art is to ensure the well- being of its material. Treacherous is further discontented at having been proved otherwise a second time by Socrates. He attempts to save his argument by saying that people are not so that they will always look for the advantage of other as they not unselfish.
He uses the analogy of the shepherd who does not, in reality, work for the benefit of the sheep, but instead his own, and his ruler’s, I. E. The farmer (Bibb). To this, Socrates later provides a very ambiguous argument referring back to the art Of medicine and thus the art Of ruling. Here, he mentions the art of wage-earning as a supplementary thing that is common to all arts that earn wages (Bibb). He is therefore trying to prove that wage- earning for a ruler is not the primary art he undertakes so he must still look for the benefit of the ruled in order to gain any benefit for himself.
Socrates continues to back up his argument by saying that there cannot be a ruler who is willing to rule without earning wages (AAA) or honor, and so to not be named a thief or tyrant, he must be adept at his art of ruling, further proof to the point that a ruler must make laws to benefit the ruled. A just man would not necessarily rule unless he sees no one more fit than he, and if he were to rule, he would do so justly. Trashcans had also revealed his thoughts in the comparison of justice and injustice.
He states that for any clever man, it is far more profitable to do injustice and if two men, one just and the other one unjust, were to make contracts, the unjust would benefit and leave the just man with nothing (34th). Socrates again provides us with an ambiguous counter-argument to this notion, which is later questioned once more by Glaucoma and Attainments at the beginning of Book II; To answer Treacherous, he compares justice and injustice to art and lack of an art, coming to conclusion that justice involves knowledge and wisdom and injustice a lack of it, implying that the unjust man is an ignorant one (AAA-351 b).
Treacherous is not satisfied with the arguments Socrates has laid out before him, and is yet to be persuaded. Socrates now mentions a city of unjust men, who act unjustly towards one another. He states that this city of men, unlike a city of just men who are able to work in harmony, will not be able to accomplish anything worthwhile (351 d). He accepts the fact that many unjust cities have been successful in conquering and enslaving others. He infers from this that there is a sort of justice amongst unjust men which allows them to work together in harmony while doing unjust deeds to others (Bibb).
He then moves on to talk about virtues and it was established earlier that justice is a kind of virtue and injustice a lack of it, or, in other words, a vice. Losing the analogy of the workings of the human eyes and ears, he describes the virtue of eyes as them being able to see and ears being able to hear (Bibb). Thus, a fine job is only acquired by the use of virtue, not vice, including that the soul of the virtuous or just is better and finer than the opposite.
Treacherous, at this point, has become more or less submissive but Glaucoma and Attainments are eager to hear a deeper discussion regarding the comparison of justice and injustice and what is more profitable (AAA) as they are not thoroughly convinced. Glaucoma, though in favor of justice, mentions that it is popular thought that justice is done unwillingly or in fear of punishment (ICC) and if given the choice, men would rather be unjust given they benefit plenty and do not pay a penalty (AAA). Attainments adds that justice is only done when there is credit to be acquired and one benefits from it.
Just deeds are invaluable when they are unnoticed, and one who does them for no reward is said to be foolish. “Seeming overpowers the truth” said by Attainments (ICC), implies it is a better life to seem to be just, than to actually be just. Socrates is a bit baffled by this, and invites them to discuss the matter with deeper thought. He wants them to look at a bigger picture, justice in a city, rather than in individuals, so they may be able to see it clearer (AAA). They eventually start devising a just city, with arts allocated to all citizens.
They give classes to them; guardians being the rulers, auxiliaries being the soldiers, and the remainder of the populace being the ruled citizens. They discuss the upbringing of all members of the just city. They come to a conclusion justice must be the coalition of wisdom, courage and moderation. These aspects must also be parts of the individual soul that makes a just person, man, woman or child. As a flash of revelation, they conclude that justice must be the minding of one’s particular business as this s the only thing that will not cause conflict within all the parts.