Plato+Rep.+book+1+pp.+55-62


 * Write the proposals for what justice is and refutation of it. There are a few. Make sure you treat each evolution/reformulation of justice as a new proposal that also needs to be refuted. __Cite the pages you are referencing and put the arguments in order.__**

The first definition of justice in the text comes from Cephalus (actually Socrates says it for him), and it is that justice is "to speak the truth and to pay your debts." (p57). This definition arises from a discussion of how a man ought to live his life in old age. However, Socrates refutes this definition by providing a counter-example about a friend who might loan you his weapons when he is sane but then asks for them back when he is insane. Clearly if you gave him back the weapons you would be causing harm to your friend and possibly to others and doing the opposite of justice. -Veronika Pashkina, p57

Cephalus- justice is to speak the truth and to pay your debts (p 57), Socrates says that it can be that but he cannot quite agree whether or not it is the "correct definition." Then he brings up the conversation about what if a friend in a reasonable state of mind were to lend you a sword or a knife and later, in a crazed state, should ask for the repayment of the debt? Ought one to remind a friend who is in a crazed state that he is mad, and ought one to return a sword to a crazy person? (p 57) Cephalus excuses from the conversation. Socrates then agrees in suggestion that telling the truth and paying debts is not always just.This therefore added another point to coming to a conclusion about the definition of justice. - Anu Turtulga

Cephalus is unsatisfied, and goes to ask Simonides, who says that "the repayment of a debt is just" (57). Socrates thinks this is absurd, and returns to the previous example of repaying a debt of arms to an insane friend. Cephalus says that Simonides didn't include this case, since "a friend ought always to do good to a friend, and never evil" (57).- Jonathan Safron ***addendum(from page 57): Socrates then gets Simonides to agree that when a person is not in his right mind(aka he is crazy) that I [socrates] am by no means to make the return. Socrates gets Simonides to agree further to his claim that if repaying a debt of money would cause injury to the receiver, and if the two people are friends, isnt a repayment of debt. Simonides gets caught contradicting himself, this is how Socrates refutes him. Simonides says "repayment of debt" is justice, yet repayment of money (which is debt) isnt repayment of debt. What! No No No, sorry Simonides, Socrates wins...again.- Jay Meisner

Socrates then asks Polemarchus whether or not we then repay our enemies, to which he replies yes, with what they gave us- evil. To which Socrates then asks whether or not justice is giving a man what he deserves. Polemarchus says this is what Simonides meant by his deffinition in "returning a debt (57,58). Socrates then later calims this quite a bleak outlook on justice, because it is "the art of theft" to help a friend and hurt a foe. Immediately Polemarchus contradicts himself and says that is incorrect, rather this system of justice is to "good the just" and harm the unjust (59, 60) -Alina Lenar

The definition of justice then evolved to become "justice is the giving to each man what is proper to him, and this he termed a debt" (58). Then Socrates further questioned Polemarchus, and the definition was refined to say "justice is the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies" (58). Then when Socrates asked how the just man is able to do harm to enemies and good to friends, Polemarchus answered, "in going to war against the one [enemy] and in making alliances with the older [friend]" (58). Polemarchus further said that in partnerships, "justice is the use" (59). He said that a just man is preferred when you want to keep something (that is not in use) safe. However, a skilled man would be a more useful and better partner when that thing is in use. One example he gave was "when you want to keep a shield...and not to use them, you would say that justice is useful; but when you want to use them, then the art of the soldier..." (59). So Socrates concludes that justice "is not good for much" since it's useless when things are useful. -Pooja Singh pg 58,59

The definition of justice then changed course to become "an art of theft; to be practiced, however, "for the good of friends and for the harm of enemies"" (60). This came about from Socrates bringing up the idea that "is not he who can best strike a blow in a boxing match or in any kind of fighting best able to ward off a blow?" (60). Using this logic, Socrates persuades Polemarchus to agree that a "good keeper of anything is also a good thief" (60). Yet, in concluding this, Polemarchus renders his earlier example of a just man to be incorrect. Since if "the just man is good at keeping money, he is good at stealing it," then the just man who holds onto his friends weapons is just as apt to steal them as is the just man who holds onto someones money. Thus, justice seems to be "an art of theft" (60) as Socrates declares. -Andrew Freeman pg. 60

After Socrates deduces that justice appears to be, "an arto of theft,"(60), he challenges Polemarchus by asking if our friends are truly are friends or if they only appear to be good to you. Polemarchus believes that people are good and just to those whom they consider friends, but Socrates points out that those, "who are not good seem to be so, and conversly," (60) so we should therefore do good to those who appear evil and evil to those who appear good. But this contradicts the fact that good do good and just things and that evil is done by the arrogant and uncaring, so that would mean we should hurt the just and help the unjust, which is amoral. The point Socrates makes here is that our perceptions of what is good/just and evil is dictates how we act towards others, and that we cannot truly know if an individual is just or not unless we are just and unjust to them, to uncover what how they truly act. -Brandon Olson pg. 60-61

On page 61 Socrates and Polemarchus came to the conclusion that those who do good are your friends and those who do bad are your enemies. Socrates then expands this point by saying that "It is just to do good to our friends when they are good, and harm to our enemies when they are evil". Therefore the definition of doing Justice becomes that if someone does wrong, then they must be 'injured'. A just person is someone who punishes all wrong doings, no matter who does them. - Madeline Tracy pg. 61

On page 61, Socrates emphasizes the importance of recognizing what makes a "friend" a "friend" when it comes to justice. He says, "He is a friend who is, as well as seems, good; and that he who seems only and is not good, only seems to be and is not a friend; and of an enemy the same may be said" (61). In order to be "just" we must do harm to those who only seem to be/do good and those who do not seem at all. One must determine the virtues of friends before determining what is just.-Lainie Keper pg 61

Later, Socrates asserts that to say justice "consists in the payments of debts"(62) is a mistake since it implies someone will be injuried as a result and that's never a just circumstance. He further asserts this view of justice was of a "rich and mighty man, who had a great opinion of his power"(62) and that again, the idea that justice is harming enemies and doing good to friends isn't accurate. -Andrew Dobies pg. 62

On pages 61 and 62, Socrates continues to invalidate the idea that justice is doing good to friends and harm to enemies by asserting that "human virtue is justice", and through a series of questions, he shows Polemarchus that doing harm is actually an act of the unjust (62). Therefore, Socrates proves another definition of justice incorrect through reason.-Prinston Varghese

Going along with what Prinston said, Socrates refutes the statement that we "aught injure those who are both wicked and... enemies" (61). Socrates reasons that "men who are injured [are] deteriorated in that which is the proper virtue of man" -- which he equates to justice. Therefore, it is just to injure enemies, but in doing so, this causes injustice. This is a contradictory statement that disproves the idea that we should injure our enemies or "give each man what is proper to him" (going back to page 58). -Erin MacDougal

To add to that, I think this does a great job showing off Plato's concept of Justice belonging to the 'higher forms'. It's not perceived because to him virtue is universal and inflexible. Also, I think a good point int he text is at page 59 where they remark that 'justice is useful when money is useless' admitting that justice greater than money which is merely an object possessing aspects of justice, but justice within itself is of higher value. - Olga Goroshko

The definition is first stated by Cephalus when he says, "but as concerning justice, what is it?-- to speak the truth and to pay you debt" (57). Socrates refutes/ questions the statement by generating holes. For example, he asks, "And are enemies also to receive what we owe to them?" (57). Thus, the idea of repaying debt being justice, justice cannot be had with enemies. Thus, war for the means of Justice is inaccurate. Then Socrates questions justice from a different angle. Socrates asks about what actions is a just man able to do harm to an enemy and good to a friend (58). Cephalus answers, "In going to war against one and in making alliance with the other" (58). This leads to Socrates' refute/ questioning of justice having no use in peace which is contradictory to the idea of Justice.- Oliver Rose

On page 56, we come to the conclusion that people make excuses for their unhappiness and always put the blame of their own actions on someone or something else. People think this will justify their discontent and bring a sense of peace to their lives. We see this when Socrates proclaims that a person is not unhappy because of age, but because of "men's characters and tempers; for he who is of a calm and happy nature will hardly feel the pressure of age, but to him who is of an opposite disposition youth and age are equally a burden".

It is written on page 57 that justice is "to speak the truth and pay your depts". That the repayment of a dept is just, that "then justice is the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies" (page 58). That by doing good to friends and giving evil to our enemies will result in going to waqr against the one and in making alliance with the other. And when both factors are equal and is going well, "in time of peace juice will be of no use" (page 58). But if a man only saids justice is only about paying depts, then hurting another in that case has no just. - So Jeong Kim

Justice is defined by Socrates and Polemarchus based off of Cephalus' initial statement that Justice is the repayment of debt (pg. 57). Socrates expands upon this by asking questions that challenge the idea, and thus proves numerous times that the initial definition is incorrect. The discrepancy between who is a friend and who is an enemy is brought up continually, as is what a friend and enemy deserves through Justice (pg. 57). While Polemarchus states that one should do good to friends and bad to enemies, Socrates refutes this by pointing out that those who seem good may in fact be evil and those who seem evil may in fact be good (58). This part concludes with the concept that it is wrong to do harm to anyone, and therefore that if debt owed to friends is good and to enemies is evil, this is not a logical definition of Justice. --Nicole Vecchione