FOLLOWING THE TWISTS AND TURNS OF THE ARGUMENT IN BOOKS ONE AND TWO OF PLATO'S REPUBLIC: WHAT IS JUSTICE? (In the following outline and questions, I refer to "Socrates" simply as a character in Plato's Republic without implying that his views represent those of the historical Socrates.  Although I am not assigning book one of the Republic, I will refer to the arguments outlined below in class.)

1. SOCRATES AND POLEMARCHOS, COMMONSENSE NOTIONS OF JUSTICE
-First definition of justice (p. 129): "To give back what is owed to each is just".
-Modified definition of justice (p. 130): "To do well to friends and to do ill to enemies..."
-Socrates' question and answer method (the ELENCHUS) leads Polemarchos to conclude, first, that justice is useful only for useless things, then, that the just man is a kind of thief (p. 132).  Polemarchos isn't convinced by Socrates' arguments and he simply restates his definition, "Justice is to help your friends and hurt your enemies."
-Socrates uses the proposition that "it is just to harm the unjust and to benefit the just" to lead Polemarchos to accept a modified definition, "It is just to do well to the friend if he is good, and to injure the enemy if he is bad." (p. 133)
-Socrates undermines this definition by arguing that "to injure anyone is never just anywhere" because to injure a person makes them “worse in human virtue” and, therefore, “more unjust” (p. 134).  In Socrates’ view, the proposed definition has led to a contradiction because it can’t be true that “the just make men unjust by justice.”

2. THRASYMACHOS' RADICAL REDEFINITION OF JUSTICE: THE ADVANTAGE OF THE STRONGER
-Thrasymachos is frustrated by the twists and turns of Socrates’ arguments and by the weakness of his opponents.  He demands a clear definition of justice from Socrates, "Don't say it is what is due, or useful, or profitable, or what pays and what benefits, tell me simply and clearly what you mean." (p. 135)
-Thrasymachos proposes a definition (p. 137), "Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger," and he explains that "the same thing is just in all states, the advantage of the established government."  This is a view similar to that expressed by the Athenians in the Melian Dialogue.
-Socrates attacks this definition by showing that "sometimes the rulers [unintentionally] command things evil for themselves, and it is just for subjects to do them." (p. 139)
-Thrasymachos is not convinced by this objection and he restates his definition with the qualification that "the ruler, as far as he is a ruler, makes no mistakes, and, making no mistakes, he lays down what is best for himself, and this the subject must do." (p. 140)
-Socrates' arguments by analogy lead him to conclude (p. 142) that "no one else in any place of rule at all, insofar as he is a ruler, enquires or commands what is his own advantage, but the advantage of his subjects."

3. THE UNJUST PERSON LIVES BETTER THAN THE JUST PERSON
-Thrasymachos is still not convinced - and we may not be either.  He offers a new argument that "the most perfect injustice...makes the unjust man most happy," and "injustice when it is grand enough is more mighty than justice, more generous, more masterly..." (pp. 142-43).
-Socrates shifts the argument to Thrasymachos' contention that "the life of the unjust man is better than the life of the just man." (p. 146)
-First, Socrates overturns Thrasymachos' (p. 147) claim that injustice is a virtue and justice is a vice (p. 150).
-Thrasymachos objects to Socrates' question and answer method, "Either let me say all that I wish, or ask away if you wish me to answer questions, and I will merely say, ‘Just so!’ and nod my head or shake my head..." (p. 150).
-Then, Socrates attacks the proposition that "injustice was both stronger and more powerful than justice," (p. 151), by showing the just "to be wiser and better and more able to act effectively, and the unjust to be incapable of accomplishing anything together..." (p. 152)

4. THE CHALLENGE FOR SOCRATES: PROVE THAT IT IS GOOD TO BE JUST, AND THAT THE JUST PERSON WILL LEAD A BETTER LIFE
-Socrates’ friends are not entirely convinced by his arguments that “it is better to be just than unjust”, but they want him to convince them.  First, though, they will describe widely held views of justice that Socrates will need to overcome...
-Glaucon describes three kinds of goods: what is good for its own sake alone (e.g., joy), what is good for its own sake and for the other benefits it brings (e.g., health), and what is burdensome in itself but valued for the benefits it brings (e.g., exercise, medicine).  Socrates places justice in the second category - the "noblest" one, but Glaucon says that most people put it in the last. (p. 155)
-Glaucon sets out to show, first, what "most people think justice is and whence it comes"; second, that those who practice justice do so unwillingly; third, that "the life of the unjust is much better than the life of the just" (p. 156)
-Look carefully at how he develops these three points with three examples: first, the explanation of the origin and nature of justice (p. 156); second, the story of GYGES and the ring (pp. 157-58); third, the comparison of the lives of the completely just and completely unjust men (pp. 158-59).  Can you compare his account of the origin and nature of justice with the views expressed by Thucydides in his reflections on the revolution in Corcyra, or with the views expressed by the Melians when they tried to persuade the Athenians to consider their own self-interest?  What is the view of human nature that is implied by these stories?  How does it compare with views put forth by Socrates in the Apology, or with the views of the author and different characters in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War?
-Adeimantos describes the way conventional notions of justice are formed by what parents teach their children, what the poets say, and what people believe about the gods (pp. 159-64)

     Glaucon and Adeimantos appeal to Socrates to prove them wrong by showing exactly what justice is and what makes it a good thing.  In response to this challenge, Socrates begins to "construct" the ideal society whose description occupies the next several books of the Republic.  He does so because he argues that it will be easier to understand justice in the larger setting of the city, than in the smaller context of the individual person....