Defining Justice
How do Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus respectively define “justice”? On what grounds does Socrates refute them? In the first book of Plato’s Republic three possible definitions of the term “justice” are brought up by Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus which Socrates is able to refute. Though Socrates presents no personal opinion himself he is able to question each explanation given to him by the others. The book begins with a discussion between Socrates and Cephalus where the question of justice is initially brought up. What makes Cephalus different from the other characters is that he does not offer his own opinion but that of traditional Greek beliefs. He simply states that justice is achieved by giving back what one has taken from another and by being an honest man. Although Cephalus does not boast about his fortunes, it becomes apparent that he is very economically-oriented and he possesses a very black and white view that justice is something that can be paid off. From this Socrates then questions how that can always be right. He provides an example of if one friend took weapons from another who was mentally unstable and they demanded them back. Would it be just for the mentally stable friend to simply return them even if he knew dangerous consequences could follow because the person was legally entitled to the weapons? Cephalus agrees that this would indeed contradict his definition of justice. From this Cephalus’ son Polemarchus interjects by disagreeing with Socrates argument. He states that he agrees with the concept once presented by the poet Simonides which is that it is just to give to each what is owed. Again, Socrates revisits the argument of how is it just to give a man with an ‘unsound’ mind back weapons and as a result Polemarchus has no choice but to agree because Socrates presents such a conditional argument. Instead of completely backing down from the debate as his father did he decides to alter this meaning by saying that it is only just to do good to friends and harm to your enemies. Much like his father, he believes in the concept that it is just to have what is rightfully owed to you (either good or bad) but was more willing to address that harm must be enforced when necessary. From this Socrates brings up the question of whether or not we are realistically able to decipher who is legitimately a friend and who is a foe, and in that case of those two classes who are we to decide who necessarily deserves good and who deserves bad. He argues that this idea is too insecure and inconsistent to be used as the definition of justice. Secondly, Socrates argues that causing harm to others, despite if they are wicked or not, is simply an unjust action. Hurting someone else doesn’t make the situation any more just than unjust and it is never right to harm another. It is now that Thrasymachus intervenes into the debate angrily and states that what Socrates is claiming is completely absurd. In his opinion what is just is simply in the interest of the stronger party. The reason why he believes this is because the laws and rules are made by the individuals who govern the state and that they are made solely in the interest of that ruling party and no one else. Since it is seen to be just to follow the men in power this therefore equals justice. This is not so much a definition for justice, but rather a way to downplay the concept altogether because he does not believe that such a thing to be considered a virtue but merely an unnatural way to put restraints on our lives. He does however clarify that being right and being just are two entirely different concepts; right means to do something good for another person, while just means obeying what is asked from a superior. No good comes from being just except for the bigger and better party and that in reality being unjust is more beneficial. He claims that the reason people condemn injustice is not because they themselves wouldn’t do it but because they are afraid of suffering because of it. The just man always ends up having the worst of it (given in examples such as business partners, etc.) and therefore injustice represents the stronger man and intelligence. From this Socrates inquires what the nature and quality of justice is compared with injustice. He proposes the idea of whether or not a state can do without justice altogether, since apparently the only quality being used now is injustice. Socrates questions if a group of thieves or members of an army were working together for an unjust result, would it not be better for them to get along and work in unity to achieve the common goal. Thrasymachus undoubtedly agrees that this of course would work better. Socrates continues by stating if each individual in the project is working towards injustice would the characteristic not manifest itself in the person. If that were true how would they ever achieve an end result? They would spend too much time harming each other to achieve their own selfish motives and therefore such a scenario could never realistically happen. He claims that being unjust makes united actions impossible to achieve. Socrates then exemplifies his point even further by saying if this were true it would produce the same results in an individual, for an unjust person would become divided amongst himself and would not be able to achieve his purpose because his soul would no longer be in unity. This point proves that not only is injustice inferior to justice because only just motives can accomplish anything but also for that reason it would be impossible to the rulers to govern any laws. Lastly Socrates concept of a thing’s function (what it can do better than anything else) becomes a major component of the argument. He gives the example of eyes and ears having their main function of seeing and hearing and that without the virtues of clear vision or sharp hearing they are unable to perform their job as well. He uses this argument to help illustrate that although a soul’s main function is to live, its virtue (which makes it perform better) is justice. If the soul is robbed of this virtue of justice than a man is unable to live to his full potential; for a just man will live well and an unjust man will not. A just soul, in his opinion, is major component of a person’s life. For this reason Socrates argues that an unjust soul can never live as well as a just one because it affects your wellbeing and pursuit of happiness and knowledge. Therefore justice is indeed a virtue and a critical aspect to human life. Though all characters have slightly different views of the meaning, Socrates was able to successfully prove that there is much more to justice than defining it in broad terms; justice is an abstract concept that to this day is difficult to delineate. Socrates cannot define justice as yet but he can say that it is a major aspect to a man living well and this is the one thing he confidently defends.