Question 5 options: Thrasymachus’ understanding of justice and injustice is as follows “justice is what is advantageous to the stronger, while injustice is to one’s own profit and advantage” (Plato, 2004). Thrasymachus introduces this question in book I by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests. Thrasymachus enters Plato’s world with a statement designed to shock, stating that “justice is the advantage of the stronger”. Firstly, the dialogue between Socrates and Thrasymachus starts with the question that justice is the interest of the stronger or not. Thrasymachus is the only real opposition to Socrates. Thrasymachus, breaking angrily into the discussion, declares that he has a better definition of justice to offer. Of course, eventually, Thrasymachus conceded that there should be some standard of wise rule, that there must be a standard of justice beyond the advantage of the stronger. Justice, he says, is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger. Thrasymachus thinks justice is the advantage of the stronger only in the case of some governments, not all. Thrasymachus believes firmly that "justice is to the advantage of the stronger." According to Thrasymachus the sophist, “justice is the advantage of the stronger”. Sophists as a group tended to emphasize personal benefit as more important than moral issues of right and wrong, and Thrasymachus does as well. In Plato’s Republic Book 1, Thrasymachus argues that morality is the advantage of the stronger. Thrasymachus was simply saying that, in making laws, the rulers kept or promoted their advantage – and that obeying laws was part and parcel of justice. Thrasymachus believes that the stronger rule society, therefore, creating laws and defining to the many what should be considered just. Thrasymachus puts his understanding of justice in these words; “justice is nothing, but the advantage of the stronger” (Plato’s Republic, Book 1, pdf p.14). Thrasymachus begins in stating, “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,1” and after prodding, explains what he means by this. A conventional description of justice may be that it is the conforming to some moral and social code when passing judgment; to make the decision that favors what is perceived to be right. Thrasymachus begins in stating, “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,1” and after prodding, explains what he means by this. Thrasymachus believes that the stronger rule society, therefore, creating laws and defining to the many what should be considered just. Socrates responds to Thrasymachus's claim that "justice is the advantage of the stronger" by appealing to the Skills do not seek their own interest, but that of their subject matter; hence those who are skilled (doctors, captains, rulers) should look to provide for their subject matter (the sick, the crew, the subjects). According to Thrasymachus, there are no rewards or benefits to be just, or to act justly. Those who do not behave justly, are benefited more than those who do. Thrasymachus says that justice is the advantage of the stronger, but Socrates argues that justice is being honest and do own role in society. Therefore, he claims that justice is “stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice” (Plato, Republic 344c). Though Thrasymachus claims that this is his definition, it is not really meant as a definition of justice as much as it is a delegitimization of justice. The idea is that rulers make the laws in their own best interests, and adherence to those laws is what constitutes justice for the individual. For example, justice is not the advantage of the stronger in a democracy.