Chose one argument and write about it Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Chose one argument and write about it - Essay Example The second premise is that leaders are irrevocably oppressive since even when they make mistakes in judgment that would be seen to have the opposite effect of advantaging the weak; they are not technically leaders since as a craftsman a leader is infallible therefore when they err they are not actually leaders. He therefore contends that as the case is in all cities, it is considered just to obey the rules, retrospectively made by the strong to be followed by the weak and this is ultimately advantageous to the law’s authors. It is at this point that most proponents’ arguments will depart and the focus of this essay will be to critically consider their arguments cross-referencing them against Thrasymuchs initial argument and use objections to them to prove it was erroneous. First Proponent’s Arguments; Leaders Universally Make Oppressive Rules On the surface, proponents may postulate 2 arguments, in defense of the first premise by Thrasymuchs, (a) they will claim that leaders in society are in charge of making rules and as such they will be likely to use their power to make only rules that benefit them and this will translate into oppressing the weak for their own sakes (b). The happiest and most successful people in society are the strong and often the leaders; they achieve their happiness and status through unjust means. Before undertaking to criticize them, one should first examine the deeper issues that arise from these perspective; they will argue that since the strong create rules. It translates automatically that they are make rules that best serve their interests; they can punish those who deviate from their laws and by means of laws reprocess or redistribute property in the name of justice. Based on this, they will claim that since Thrasymuchs believed only a fool would use power to their own disadvantage, the existence of justice in a society was inseparable from the exploitation of the weak by the strong (Barney). A second premise on which support for the initial claim is based is the fact that in most cities, the happiest and the strongest are often unjust. Therefore, for one to be strong in any community they have to take advantage of others and according to Thrasymuchs, the unjust are always happier and more powerful than the just. As such for the strong to be strong, it is because they followed an unjust route and they needs must remain unfair to the weak by using justice to exploit them and therefore safeguard and maintain their unjustly acquired positions of power. Objection to First Proponent’s Argument If these arguments were indeed true, then it would be unequivocal validation for the argument made by Thrasymuchs since they are quite significant and reasonable. However if one departs from an appreciative and assumes a critical point of view, these arguments will not stand under logical scrutiny. For one, the underlying assumption here is that the â€Å"strong† are interchangeable with leaders, however, this is not always the case since in society, the strong, which in this case we assume depicts the wealthy and influential do not always have positions of power. While this argument may work in a dictatorship, in a democratic states leaders are elected by the common majority and their remaining in power is often determined by how much they sacrifice their own interests for the sake of the weak (Read