ps into Thrasymachuss argument, a) that Justice is in the interest of the stronger, and b) justice is anothers good, concluding that Justice is confined to the weaker. This view is demolished when Thrasymachus claims that a ruler can be either just or unjust; the inconsistency cannot be resolved. The two possibilities coincide in the weaker person not the stronger. As he favours injustice as the pursuit of ones own interest, to paraphrase Cross, when Thrasymachus thinks about the just and unjust ruler, it is in terms of anothers good rather than in the interest of the stronger.Socrates agrees with Thrasymachus: what is right is an interest. , but he reveals the inconsistency between obeying the rulers and what promotes the rulers interests by introducing a wrong law. With Thrasymachuss admission that Rulers are not infallible another dilemma appears. Must a subject disobey a wrong law, thus serving the rulers interest, or obey it and disobey the rulers interests? He later states that in the true sense, a ruler that is mistaken is not really a ruler; similarly a mistaken doctor ceases in the true sense to be a doctor. Thus, a ruler/expert can never be wrong about his interests, as when mistaken they cease to be an expert. Hence, Thrasymachus avoids Socratess dilemma, leaving no possibility for the subject to act contrary to the rulers interests. Plato misses an opportunity to ridicule Thrasymachuss argument. Not only is Thrasymachuss mistake analogy ridiculous, i.e. a doctor simply becomes a bad doctor; moreover, it implies the subject can decide the rulers interests, and thus only obey the ruler if he thinks its in his [rulers] interest. Thus making the subject the stronger and in control. Plato could have used Thrasymachuss own argument to refute him but instead, as Cross identifies, attacks him on three lines of Socratic attack. Did Plato have an opportunity to adequately respond to Thrasymachus?Firstly, Socrates uses an a...
