Socrates Definition Of Justice Analysis

1477 Words 6 Pages
1. In Book I of the Republic, Cephalus defines justice as the following: justice is telling truth and paying debts. However, Socrates refutes Cephalus’s definition by claiming that there are situations when it is not just to tell the truth and pay the debts. Sometimes, contracts are bad though it starts out good. For example, it is not just to return weapon or entrust care to a friend who is insane. Besides Cephalus’s definition of justice, Thrasymachus also provides his definition of justice. First, justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger. "The stronger" has political power which is the power to make law. Second, justice is obedience to laws. Government makes law according to their interests. Law is considered to be just; therefore, someone who breaks law is unjust. Third, justice is the good of another. Since justice is not individual good, it won't make one individually happy. Therefore, unjust man is much happier than the just man. However, Socrates refutes Thrasymachus’s definition of justice by arguing that people who make the law can be foolish and ignorant. Also, rulers will make errors, passing laws not in their interest. Furthermore, Socrates provides a craft argument to persuade Thrasymachus. Making law is some kind of technique, and its benefit falls on the users. In other words, law can't benefit law makers, but can benefit to its apply. …show more content…
On one hand, Moses can be seen as a just person. When Moses makes immediate judgement about the Egyptian, he follows Polemarchus’s requirement of justice by killing his enemies—Egyptian. On the other hand, Moses is unjust. When he chooses to kill the Egyptian, he violates Socrates’s argument that a just person should never do harm. Therefore, we can conclude that Moses, in Exodus, can be seen as both just and unjust depending on different definitions of

Related Documents