Beginning with his theory that might makes right, Thrasymachus is now advocating that injustice is better than justice; injustice is better for the individual. Thrasymachus is arguing that crime pays. Thrasymachus herein is arguing a kind of situational ethics; he is praising the benefits of amorality, and he here attempts to stand the entire argument on its head.
At the same time, we may find fault with Socrates' argument from analogy. Socrates is arguing that a man who prescribes medicine for himself has a fool for a physician, but we might object that a given man's ignorance in this instance may be said to be inconclusive; much the same is true of the flute-player analogy. The comparisons attempted here may not agree in sufficient points.
Socrates then argues that it follows that there must be a kind of honor among criminals, that in order to retain some sort of communal strength, they must practice a kind of honor. But Thrasymachus seems to have been arguing for man as an isolato, a self-sustained creature who does not require any sense of community.
Socrates' third rebuttal is also rather vague; the analogies he seeks to advance are not very clear, and it is difficult to perceive their essential similarities as being readily similar to the essence of the good man and his pursuit of justice.
