Socrates and Thrasymachus

(Originally written September 13, 2006 in Book 10)

The Republic (continued)

Polemarchus takes Cephalus' place and asserts that morality is giving good to one's friends and giving bad to one's enemies. Polemarchus takes Simonides' definition of morality.

Socrates proceeds to show how morality is useless under this definition because one cannot use morality when one is performing a skill, but when skills are being performed then it can be used. But obviously it is still useless.

Socrates confuses Polemarchus to the point he admits that he isn't sure what he means by morality, but dogmatically accepts that it more or less lies in helping one's friends and harming one's enemies.

Socrates then examines what it is to be a friend and what it is to be an enemy. They come to the agreement that a friend is someone who is good and an enemy is someone who is bad. But, Polemarchus realizes that sometimes we make wrong judgments about people and consider enemies as friends and friends as enemies.

Socrates then asks can a moral person harm anyone?

Good people who are harmed become less moral. Thus it is not the job of moral people to harm anyone.

Socrates deduces that the definition of being moral as being good to one's friend and harming one's enemy was created by someone who fancied themselves to be powerful.

Thrasymachus wanted to interject his position a number of times, but people held him back because they wanted to hear the conclusion of the conversation.

"Like a wild animal, he crouched and hurled himself at us as if to tear us apart" (Pojman, 103).

Thrasymachus demands that Socrates stop asking questions and plainly state what he believes morality to be.

Socrates asks for Thrasymachus' definition of morality, but Thrasymachus demands payment. Others, not Socrates, offer to pay for it. After a lot of blowing of smoke Thrasymachus agrees to state his positions because he likes having an audience and had a good position which he thought would bring him esteem; so, he obliged.

Thrasymachus contended that morality was the advantage of the stronger party. Thus, morality is what a current regime legislates it to be. Thrasymachus agrees that it is right to obey the government but admits that governments are not infallible. Since governments are fallible they pass legislation that is sometimes advantageous and sometimes not advantageous.

Socrates begins to corner Thrasymachus in the fact of rulers' being fallible and yet their laws being absolutely moral. Thrasymachus then calls Socrates a bully because of his questions.

Socrates has reduced Thrasymachus' definition of morality to the "trivial" claims that:
1) Rulers rule in their own interest
2) Morality is obeying rulers

Thrasymachus states that morality is a bad thing because it is only practiced when one is powerless. "A moral person is worse off than an immoral one" (Pojman, 108). Immorality, in its most perfect form enhances the wrongdoer's life immeasurably and ruins the lives of his victims. Small scale criminals are punished and stigmatized; whereas, those who do it on a grand scale are legends and become rulers. "Immorality has a bad name because people are afraid of being at the receiving end of it, not of doing it" (Pojman, 109).

At this point Thrasymachus attempts to leave, but Socrates baits him into staying by stating he is not convinced by his arguments.

Thrasymachus becomes irritated and exclaims that if that has not convinced him then nothing will.

Socrates holds that good men do not desire authority and power and take it on when they are forced to by fear of being ruled by a lesser man or poorer government. A genuine ruler, to Socrates, cannot consider himself.

Pickpocketing is advantageous if you can do it without getting caught, but pales in comparison into conquering nations by theft and deceit in Thrasymachus' opinion.  Thrasymachus concludes that a moral person would not try to obtain power because civilized simpletons (moral persons) do not do this.

Socrates proves that moral persons will only want to set themselves above immoral persons; whereas, immoral persons will attempt to set themselves above all others, moral and immoral. He also proves that good people will only want to set themselves above bad people; whereas, bad people will want to set themselves above all people. Thus, moral people are good people and immoral people are bad people.

Morality is equivalent to good which is equivalent to knowledge.
Immorality is equivalent to bad which is equivalent to ignorance.

Immorality is less effective then morality according to Socrates. Thrasymachus holds the opposite.

Socrates states that morality causes:
1) an incapability of cooperation and dissension
2) hostility betwixt itself and betwixt anything moral and itself

An immoral person is the enemy of the gods because the gods are moral beings.

Moral people can accomplish things and immoral people cannot sustain action according to Socrates. By this point Thrasymachus is sarcastic and abusive.

A moral person has a moral mind; an immoral person has an immoral mind. Morality is equivalent to accomplishment. Immorality is equivalent to dissension/inaction. Thus, the moral man will have a better life that is more fulfilled than an immoral one.

A moral person is happy and an immoral person is unhappy.

Socrates admits that he has not discovered what morality is, only that he has discovered morality is more fruitful than immorality.