Plato's "Republic," Book I Flashcards
What is Cepahlus’ definition of justice (331c) and what is wrong with it according to Socrates?
Cephalus’ Definition of Justice: “I may be old in years, but I do not hold the view that some people express. They think that justice means doing one’s own and not meddling with what belongs to others. To my mind, that is a very simple and reasonable view.”
Cephalus’ definition of justice is a straightforward and conventional one. He believes that justice primarily involves respecting the rights of others, not interfering with their possessions or affairs, and fulfilling one’s own obligations and duties.
Socrates criticizes this definition in the following ways: Lack of Depth, Potential Injustice, in addition to Age and Wealth.
Lack of Depth: Socrates argues that Cephalus’ definition is too simplistic and lacks depth. It focuses on external actions and appearances but does not delve into the deeper philosophical and moral aspects of justice.
Potential Injustice: Socrates raises the concern that following this definition of justice may lead to injustice in certain situations. For example, if you borrow your friend’s weapons, and enrage them by not returning them, it is not just to return the weapons at that time.
Age and Wealth: Socrates also criticizes Cephalus for suggesting that old age brings wisdom and moral virtue. He argues that this view is overly simplistic and that it overlooks the importance of moral character and philosophical inquiry in understanding justice.
What is Polemarchus’ definitions of justice in 332a-b, and what is wrong with it according to Socrates?
Polemarchus’ Second Definition (332a-b): Polemarchus revises his definition and states, “Justice is to do good to friends and harm to enemies.” He proposes that justice involves benefiting friends and harming enemies.
Socrates’ Critique: Socrates criticizes this definition for its potential to lead to injustice. He argues that it might be unjust to harm someone who is not truly an enemy or to benefit someone who is not a genuine friend. Socrates believes that defining justice in this way lacks precision and could be morally problematic.
What is Polemarchus’ definitions of justice 332d, and what is wrong with it according to Socrates?
Polemarchus’ Third Definition (332d): In response to Socrates’ criticisms, Polemarchus revises his definition again and states, “Justice means benefiting friends and not benefiting enemies.” Here, he clarifies that justice involves doing good to friends but refraining from harming enemies.
Socrates’ Critique: Socrates continues to challenge this definition. He raises questions about how one determines who qualifies as a friend or an enemy, and he argues that this definition may still lead to unjust actions based on misjudgments of friendship and enmity.
What is Thrasymachus’ definition of justice (338c)? What does it mean? Why does Thrasymachus think that justice is for fools, and why does he think injustice is better than justice? What is his picture or understanding of how justice and injustice function in society?
Thrasymachus’ Definition of Justice: “I proclaim that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger.”
In essence, Thrasymachus argues that justice reflects the interests and power of those in authority or the ruling class. He asserts that what is considered just is determined by those who hold power and use it to advance their own interests. According to Thrasymachus, the powerful define and enforce the laws, and these laws serve their own advantage, which constitutes justice in their eyes.
Thrasymachus believes that justice is for fools because he sees it as a tool used by the ruling class to control and manipulate the weaker members of society. In his view, the rulers enact laws that benefit themselves and label these laws as just to maintain their authority. People who obey these laws, thinking they are acting justly, are serving the interests of the powerful.
What is Polemarchus’ definitions of justice 335a, and what is wrong with it according to Socrates?
Polemarchus’ Fourth Definition (335a): Polemarchus presents another variation of his definition, suggesting that justice is “helping friends and harming enemies.”
Socrates’ Critique: Socrates points out that this definition is similar to the second one, which they had previously criticized. He argues that the key problem lies in determining who should be classified as a friend or an enemy and whether harming anyone is truly just.
Socrates’ criticisms of Polemarchus’ definitions of justice highlight the need for a more comprehensive and philosophically rigorous understanding of justice. Socrates insists on a deeper exploration of the nature of justice, its inherent qualities, and its implications.
