In this paper we will show that Glaucon and Thrasymachus' positions on justice are entirely different. We argue that Thrasymachus despite his slippage and confusion between a traditional and immoralist definition of justice, is really intending to illustrate a political system ruled by a rational-minded and exploitative tyrant. On the other hand Glaucon clearly presents justice as a necessary evil originating out of a social contract constructed by the weak of society. He then challenges Socrates to prove to him that the life of a just man is better than the life of an unjust man.
In Book I of The Republic we are introduced to the character Thrasymachus who
representing the Sophist school argues that Justice is nothing more than the "advantage of the stronger." What Thrasymachus means by this statement is confusing as while it seems he is asserting that the strong have justice he later contradicts himself by arguing that what gets called injustice is justice. Thrasymachus' slippage presents two different accounts of justice which conflict with each other. Although it appears that the immoralist position is what Thrasymachus intended to take due to his slippage, there exists some confusion as to whether the stronger doing justice will benefit the stronger or the weaker. In Book II Glaucon and his brother Adimantus restore Thrasymachus' delegitimization of justice claiming that "? Thrasymachus, like a snake, has been charmed more quickly than he should have been?" (358b). Glaucon defines justice as a necessary evil, and that justice is derived from human weakness and fear. Glaucon argues that justice is practiced not out of its own sake but a good that we only desire for its consequences. ...