Words: 737
He admits that old age is not the greatest, but that he does not find it as much of a burden as some do. Cephalic and Socrates discuss how wealth has made it easier for Cephalic to lead a happy and virtuous life, but wealth along does not guarantee these things. Socrates sakes what is the greatest benefit Cephalic received from being wealthy to which he receives more or less “piece of mind” as an answer since wealth keeps one from having to lie and deceive and wealth allows them to leave life owing no one Socrates asks if justice is telling the truth and paying debts
We get a hint of the first definition of justice Justice-doing what you’re supposed to do, especially giving others what they should have- whether this is returning possessions, being honest in business or giving proper sacrifice to the gods Cephalic agrees that telling the truth and paying debts are not solely the definition of justice but really doesn’t offer another concrete definition.
Socrates and Polymerases Socrates challenges the idea that justice is to “speak the truth and repay what is borrowed”- after all, I would not return a borrowed weapon to a crazy arson. Polymerases wants to defend this notion of justice (and simultaneously his father Cephalic) however or at least a version of it, he says that justice is giving people what they are owed Polymerases eventually tries to put it in more general terms to say that one owes what is good to one’s friends and what is bad to one’s enemies.
Polymerases and Socrates discuss particular crafts (sets of practices IEEE medicine) and examine what circumstances each is suited for factor in capacity for opposites IEEE a good doctor is good at healing but could also be DOD at killings Socrates assumes that a just person must have a special ability and area of expertise (such as in a craft) but that justice itself is not a craft as vaguely presented by Polymerases.
In going through this discussion, Socrates wants to know under what circumstances it is good to work with a just person-??because it seems that in any particular situation, you’ll want to deal with the person who has a skill for that particular situation Polymerases says that in $ a just person is helpful Since a just person also knows how to keep money and goods safe, he must also be able to steal them. What should we make of the fact that someone can have a friend who is a bad person, or an enemy who is a good person. Is to to benefit the former or harm the latter?
Polymerases tries to adjust his definition, but Socrates raises another question: If harming another person makes them less just, can justice require harming someone? Socrates criticizes Polymerases definition on grounds that it could be interpreted as just people may have to be thieves, killers, etc Socrates and Treacherous Treacherous interrupts to offer his own definition: justice is whatever is to he advantage of the stronger, because the strong will create a system of morality designed to maintain their position and make the weak accept their inferior position.
This enters the possibility of making mistakes about friends and enemies. If A is a friend and B is an enemy, then helping B and harming A, I have harmed a friend (who is good) an an enemy (who is bad). Socrates argues that any craft that puts a person in a position of power over another, if performed properly, concerns itself with the improvement of the weaker person. I. E. The ship’s captain does that which is best for the ship’s crew; the doctor goes what is best for the body.
No craft and certainly not justice can be concerned with the advantage of the ruler. Treacherous argues that the rulers are like shepherds- who only worry about their sheep because it is in their interest. A just person gains no benefit from being just-indeed, injustice is more advantageous. This reaches its point in the conquered who is completely unjust yet is praised for his skill at conquest. Socrates replies that for any collaboration to succeed, the collaborators must treat each other justly- so complete injustice can not be a virtue.