Socrates Claim Of Justice Analysis

Socrates does not adequately refute the claim that justice means to tell the truth and not steal, or as Cephalus puts it, “Not cheating someone even unintentionally, not lying to him, [b] not owing a sacrifice to some god or money to a person”. Socrates replies by giving the following counter example, “if a man borrows weapons from a sane friend, and if he goes mad and asks for them back, the friend should not return them, and would not be just if he did. Nor should anyone be willing to tell the whole truth to someone in such a state.” The argument Socrates makes is based on assumptions and he does not include enough evidence to support this claim. First, Socrates does not define what he means by a friend who has gone mad. Additionally, Socrates …show more content…
However, he does not say what he means by this statement. Again, I am left to assume what Socrates meant without having clear dialog to follow. Therefore, I will deduct what I think is Socrates’ best argument given the information I have and go from there. The reason Socrates claims it would not be just to give weapons to a crazy person, I believe, arises out of a fear of the consequences. Socrates is implying that in a worst case scenario, returning weapons to a crazy person could potentially lead to people being harmed or killed. However, there is a problem with this way of thinking. Since there is no way to know the future, Socrates is wrong to claim what is justice could be based on events that have not yet occurred. He is actually saying it is justified to condemn people based on actions they have not yet committed. This judgmental way of thinking does not seem just to me because it cannot be proven. If I was to borrow money from a friend and thought that if I returned the money it would be used for a bad purpose, I still think it would be the right thing for me to do to return the money. Since what I think my friend will do with the money is only an opinion, it would not be right to withhold or steal the money based on a perception that could be wrong. Withholding borrowed items is stealing, which is the opposite of justice. By simply saying that a person is crazy does not …show more content…
Even if telling the truth would seem to lead to the Nazis killing the Jew in Socrates’ basement, there is no guarantee that they would not have searched his house anyway. There is also a possibility that this one Nazi shows mercy and decides to help hide even more Jews. Unless Socrates is implying that he can see the future, how can he simply say that lying to a crazy person is just? In order to make this argument, Socrates’ need to explain what me