Thrasymachus has a very perplexed and unordinary definition of morality. His view is that morality is revolves around the peoples’ performance and non-performance. He described the world as a “dog-eat-dog” world and those who are immoral are better off than those who are moral. He says in all aspects of life, immorality is advantageous for the stronger party while morality is beneficial for oneself. He goes on to repeatedly suggest that morality is advantage. He ties morality directly with government. He suggests that because there are different forms of government, each government identifies their moral belief for its subjects. When subjects are indoctrinated with this belief, it works advantageous to the government and subjugates those go against the belief or idea.…show more content… After talking about the different types of governments as a whole, he then dissects the dictatorship form of government. He explains the paradox of a dictator stealing the rights and freedoms of individuals and still being praised compared to an average citizen who is reprimanded for stealing an item. The difference Thrasymachus suggests is that the end result is vastly different. The subject who steals is reprimanded while the dictator is still praised. He uses this example to describe how people are afraid to be immoral because it comes along with punishment. Thrasymachus actually suggests that morality is the opposite of cleverness or goodness, suggesting that criminals are clever, good people. Thrasymachus believes that pleonixia, which is commonly associated with immorality, is good for society. His belief is the that if subjects of society do their job, they are certain to expound and provide benefits to other people of the society because societies are
