The Argument of Plato's Republic - Essay Example

The Argument of Plato's Republic In his search for the meaning of justice, Socrates involved several people in discussions (Reeve 112). In his discussion with Cephalous, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, he questions their understanding of justice. According to Cephalous, justice is truth telling and giving back what one received from anyone. Justice involves the return of a deposit to anyone, whatsoever the case. Socrates challenged his understanding of justice. He gives him an example of one who lends a weapon from someone.

In case the owner of the weapon comes back insane, would it still be justice even if it is in the lender’s right mind that he will use the weapon to harm? Would he still choose to tell only the truth to a person in such a state? According to Socrates, therefore, saying the truth and retuning what one has received do not qualify to be justice. In that case, truth telling and giving back is not justice. Polemarchus, inheriting the argument from Cephalous went ahead to give his understanding of justice.

According to Polemarchus, justice means giving favor to friends and mistreating enemies. That is, it is what renders good to friends when he is good and harms to enemies when he is bad. Socrates contradicts his description on the basis of what circumstances should the just man can benefit from friends and receive evil from enemies. According to him, Polemarchus refers to justice as a kind of stealing to benefit friends and harm enemies. It is just to wrong the unjust. Differentiating between friends and enemies becomes difficult, therefore.

Many people who seem good in many cases are not. Socrates gives an example of one who is skilled to give a blow as the one most cautious to secure a guard from a blow. Polemarchus admits the argument saying he did not know what he meant. He still believes, though, that justice benefits friends and harm enemies. Thrasymachus then came into the conversation. According to him, the just is the advantage of the stronger. He points out various regimes of rule such as tyrants, democracy rules, and aristocracy.

According to him, the ruling party sets the goals and laws. Justice, therefore, is the advantage obtained by the ruling party, or other, the stronger. Whosoever does not follow the set laws is, therefore, a lawbreaker. In response, Socrates admits that the just is something of advantage but beg to pursue an inquiry into the point. He points out that obedience to leaders is being just. He further explains that leaders, too, are prone to err. In making laws, therefore, leaders can do some rightly and others not rightly.

If their subjects must perform the laws, then it would also be just to do what is not right. Off-shoe accounts can be used to make debts invisible to regulators and investors. Ring of Gyges theory and Enron and Anderson used this. They escaped prosecution for their injustice. Socrates note that unjust are successful and pronounced achievers. His conclusion is that people seemingly embrace justice for fear of the consequences of being unjust (Reeve 108). The just is unwilling to be real leaders.

This, according to Socrates, is because they do not want to associate with injustice. To him most leaders are unjust. Works citedReeve, Charles. Philosopher-Kings: The Argument of Plato's Republic. Princeton, NJ: Hackett Publishing, 2006. Print.