Sophisy Thrasymachus argues that justice is really the good of another



Sophisy Thrasymachus argues that justice is really the good of another, the advantage of the ruler and the stronger, and harmful to the one who obeys and serves. This means that the person in a higher authority or with more influence is always likely to be favored in comparison to the one with lesser influence. It means that at no point will justice ensure complete prevalence of the just over the unjust. The just man always happens to get less than the unjust man. This is because the unjust man has more influence, authority and power to manipulate the set regulations and regulators in his favor. The just man is at the liberty of regulators who may decide to be partial or influenced by the unjust. These ideas appear to be at work in corporations whereby regulations are disregarded when the output (in profits) supersedes the risk (in the name of fines). Corporations do not conform to social norms and legal standards knowing that even the fine involved would not be anything close to the resulting profits. Consequently, just workers are subjected to sweatshops where they work hard to benefit an unjust corporation that pays them meagre wages.

The point of the story of the ‘Ring of Gyges’ is that humans are inherently designed to be unjust for the mere reason it profits them. That the only reason humans do well is because there is a set of rules and regulations that limits their ability to get involved in unjust behavior that would otherwise profit them. Otherwise, human beings would be doing injustice and finding it to be good. Those who will be suffering from the injustice are the ones who would be finding it to be bad. The ring can be a metaphor for anarchy. A state of lawlessness where everyone has a right to do as he pleases.  Just like having the ring, if the state was governed by lawlessness, then the result would be both the just and unjust treading the profitable path of injustice. In corporations, such invisibility as evidenced by the ring exists in that most of them are profit-oriented. As a result, they put on their ring and get involved in socially irresponsible conduct. Such include outsourcing to sweatshops where there is poor workmanship.  Sophisy Thrasymachus argues that justice is really the good of another

The Sophists advocate the blurring of the distinction between ‘seeming wise’ and ‘being wise’ as well as ‘seeming just’ and ‘being just’ as opposed to Socrates’ desire to distinguish the two. This is because either definition is based on perception. According to sophists, it is likely that a person who is branded to be ‘seemingly just’ is likely to be unjust. While Socrates insinuate that being just is proverbially difficult, but the man who manages it has the advantage that he can be his true self all the time, seeming just is equally founded on a hypocritical character where one affords to forge a just personality all the time. This idea is at work in corporations. While the corporations appear to be handy in steering charitable activities in the community (seeming just), they are the first to violate social norms and responsibility in the name of raising profits. They therefore create a perception of being just because they seem just, yet they are not just at all.

As Gorgias suggested, oratory (persuasion which produces conviction without knowledge) might help bring the corporation ‘the greatest goods’ as it will give the corporation a good reputation to the society. oratory will make a corporation understand the importance of corporate social responsibility and the need for workers and customers welfare coming ahead of maximizing profits. as a result, there will be a shift in focus whereby the corporation will embark on improving the well-being of the two parties. Since these parties are the major controllers of the market economy, the corporation is likely to benefit greatly from a well-established reputation. Happy workers will increase productivity and consumers will be more willing to purchase products since they are treated specially.

According to Callicles, the difference between the law of nature and conventional morality is that the law of nature seeks to benefit the best or the superior over the inferior, while the latter is nothing more than agreements or set of regulations intended to be rational agents: established to limit the power of the strong. The law of nature, which is not just evident in men but even animals, allow for the superior to take control of the inferior and justifies the dominion of the powerful over the weak, while conventional morality regulates such actions. Corporations here might be depicted as operating according to the law of nature when they use their position to their own advantage. This may be evidenced when they work to achieve the shareholders’ interests and not the workers or the consumers or when they behave like externalizing machines whereby they transfer any financial restraint to the workers or consumers.Sophisy Thrasymachus argues that justice is really the good of another

The corporation takes after logic outlined by both Thrasymachus and Callicles. That ‘if the law is not to my advantage I ought not to obey it if I am too powerful to be stopped or too clever to be caught or pay serious consequences.’ Following rules should simply be a business decision. This is evidenced by corporations which disregard set legislations (be it environmental, labor, commercial practice) knowing that the expected profits would by far outdo the anticipated fines or expenses. While the documentary gives a number of corporations that have boldly violated such legislations in a bid to maximize profits, the most recent development is in the Volkswagen Scandal case where the company knowingly violated environmental legislations.