Definitions Of Justice In Plato's The Republic

In his book, The Republic, Plato, a Greek philosopher, engages in conversation with his teacher Socrates. They come across the questions of “What is justice?” and “What is just?”. And throughout the first two books of the The Republic, many definitions of what justice is are thrown out by other philosophers, and Socrates always has an example to challenge each one. In the first book, three possible definitions are set out, and then in book two the argument of whether it is more profitable to be unjust or just is laid out.

The first definition of justice is given to us by Cephalus, rich, well-respected elder of the city. He believes that justice is the act of telling the truth and paying one's dues or debts. And while his argument is good …show more content…
He believes that the definition is that you owe help to your friends, and that you owe harm to your enemies. This definition is similar to the previous given by his father in the regard that they both concern themselves with the importance of owing to others what is due and of giving to each type of person what is appropriate. And despite the differences between the two definitions, Polemarchus’ is just as flawed as Cephalus’. Socrates points out that a human’s ability to dictate who are their friends and enemies is inconsistent, and because no every person is friends with righteous and enemies with villains, this ideology can lead us to, in some cases, harm the good and help the bad. Socrates also states that it is also illogical to decide whether to harm someone based on …show more content…
Glaucon, who is one of Socrates young companions, presents the argument that being unjust is more profitable than being just. He states that all goods can be divided into three classes: things that we desire only for their consequences, things that we desire only for their own sake, and things we desire both for their own sake and for what we get from them. The other men want Socrates prove is that justice is not only desirable, but that it is something desired both for their own sake and their consequences. While stating his point, Glaucon uses the Ring of Gyges idea to prove that justice is something that men only seek for its consequences that it has both in the realm of the living and the afterlife, and that any man, even the most just man would lead an unjust life if given the Ring of Gyges which could grant you invisibility. I personally believe that this argument is all based what someone values in a good life, whether you prefer to have material things or if you desire to do the right thing. And what one wants out of their life is important here as well. I think that if one wants to accrue many materialistic things, then living unjustly and using the ring to their advantage would be more beneficial. If you’re invisible you are exempt from any consequences of breaking the law, and you have the ability and opportunity to achieve all of your urges. When