What is justice?

I've started reading Plato's Republic, and that's the question he sets out to answer at the beginning of the book. (This is going to be a summary and response journal entry.) After arriving to a Greek port city for a religious festival, Socrates is invited to Polemarchus's house. The first dialogue starts when he runs into Cephalus, Polemarchus's dad.

Cephalus

Cephalus and Socrates sit down, with Socrates asking whether old age is necessarily a negative thing. He responds, saying that men his age complain a lot because the pleasures of life are stripped away with age.

"I can't make love, drink, and go to parties like I used to. Life isn't life anymore."

As people get older, their capacity to enjoy many pleasures starts to decrease, which is why Cephalus reports the complaints of so many Athenian men. But Cephalus actually rejects this idea.

"If old age were the root of all these issues, I would be suffering too, but me and my friends aren't."

He then brings up an anecdote where someone "asked the poet Sophocles about sex, and whether he was still able to make love to a woman." He replied "Don't talk about that; I am glad to have left it behind me and escaped from a fierce and frenzied master."

Cephalus brought up this quote to make the point that old age weakens your body, but liberates you and brings clarity. Sophocles named lust a "fierce and frenzied master" because it controlled young people. When your desires lose intensity from age, that and many other vices lose grip on your behavior, bringing a feeling of freedom and peace.

With that, Cephalus concludes the complaints are results of their character and not the age itself.

"For if men are sensible and good-tempered, old age is easy enough to bear: if not, youth as well as age is a burden."

📘 Info: These conversations didn't happen in real life. Plato uses fanfic from the POV of his mentor Socrates to convey ideas.

Socrates presses Cephalus a bit, saying that many believe old age sits lightly on him due to his wealth. (Cephalus has a fortune.) He agrees that it helps to an extent, but it's mostly because of his own personality.

This part of the dialogue was an opportunity for Plato to make a point about the importance of character. A poor man struggles because he is poor, but if he is virtuous, he can have peace near his death knowing that he lived a just life. A rich man who lacks virtue will fail to find peace in his final years because he'll be remembering all of his transgressions and considering the afterlife.

A bit further in the dialogue, Socrates points out that Cephalus is nonchalant when talking about his money, and that this is unexpected because Cephalus owns more money than he had inherited from his father. Socrates talks from personal experience, saying that people with self-made fortunes talk nonstop about their wealth, like how authors are attached to their poems and how parents love their children.

Cephalus explains that he doesn't view wealth as an ultimate goal of life. Wealth is merely a tool for him to achieve peace in his dying days.

"When a man faces the thought of death, there come into mind anxieties that did not trouble him before."

When passing away becomes an actual consideration that will likely happen soon, people start worrying about the underworld and the afterlife punishments. Therefore, the greatest blessing of his wealth are not the material possessions he can afford, but the freedom to have a clean conscience at the end of his life. His money is a means of repaying debts and dying with a clean conscience.

If you weren't paying attention before, you probably should start around this section right here, because this is where we start looking at the definition of justice directly.

📘 Info: TLDR: Cephalus represents the view that justice is repaying debts and speaking the truth.

Socrates praises Cephalus, saying that his message is "well-said", but that he believes justice might have more to it than the traditional view of "repaying debts and speaking the truth."

He raises this hypothetical:

"If a friend, while sane, leaves his knife with me, but then goes mad and demands the knife back, should I give it to him?"

When I first read this, I thought Socrates was using an edge case and misinterpreting what the argument actually meant, but this contrived hypothetical is used to make the point that when you define justice as a simple checklist of rules, there will always be a way to find some kind of loophole that makes the definition justify something that doesn't feel just.

At this point in the story, Cephalus excuses himself from the argument because he has to go prepare for the religious festival. Polemarchus (his son), takes up his side in the argument and the next dialogue starts.

Polemarchus

Polemarchus starts his refutation of Socrates by redefining justice. Because the previous definition was proved wrong with the hypothetical, Polemarchus refines the meaning. Instead of "repaying debts and speaking the truth", he says it really means "giving each man what is proper to him."

This is the second definition of justice in the book:

"Do good to friends and evil to enemies."

Socrates tests this out with a few analogies:

• Medicine gives remedies to the sick
• Cooking gives flavor to food

At this point, Polemarchus is agreeing that justice is like these skills, which give benefit to a subject.

Next, Socrates challenges the definition of justice by pointing out that any actual skill would be more useful in peacetime than the ability to enforce "justice".

• If you're playing chess with a teammate, you care most about the quality of being skilled at chess
• If you're looking for a guitar teacher, you care most about the quality of being skilled at guitar

These examples are used to show we rarely look for people who can bring good to us and harm to our enemies in peacetime. Rather, we look for people who are skilled in those trades or games. Not to say that there couldn't be someone who has both qualities, but the skill itself is the focus.

Socrates then extends the logic to "people who are good at a job are often skilled at the opposite of their job." For example, a bank security guard, being familiarized with the security systems, would also be good at robbing that bank. Therefore, a just man who is good at protecting money would also have the capacity to be good at stealing it.

I'm not sure why exactly Socrates brought up that last point because it doesn't logically follow that the just man would be a thief, only that he would have the capacity to steal, but perhaps I just have the wrong translation. (I'm reading the Penguin Classics translation.)

📘 Info: We don't have the actual original scrolls of what Plato wrote down, we have distributed copies and translations, so scholars have to cross-reference and guess what the original was. Modern versions probably aren't 100% accurate.

Polemarchus concedes but he sticks by his original claim. Socrates asks how he decides who a friend and an enemy is, and he clarifies: a "friend" is someone who seems good, an "enemy" is someone who seems evil.

Because people can seem to be the opposite of what they actually are, justice must distinguish what a person truly is, or else it'd be inconsistent.

Next, Socrates asks if justice can make something unjust.

• Heat cannot cool things
• Dryness cannot wet things

Therefore the good man cannot do harm to his enemies, for he cannot do harm. The logic here is that a nature cannot do the opposite of its nature.

Socrates concludes the good man does not "help his friends and harm his enemies," for it is never just to harm anyone at any time.

Polemarchus finds himself agreeing with Socrates and says that he will be taking his side in the argument from now on.

Thrasymachus

Throughout the whole Socrates-Polemarchus dialogue, someone has been watching from the sidelines—Thrasymachus.

He jumps into the conversation, screaming at both Polemarchus and Socrates. He asks why they're being so nice in their talking, and yells for them to hurry up and find out what justice is. He calls out Socrates, saying that he asks questions and refutes the answers of others, and never provides an answer of his own.

Point blank, he asks Socrates:

"Tell us what you think justice is. And don't tell me that it's duty, or expediency, or advantage, or profit, or interest. I won't put up with nonsense of that sort."

Socrates calls this out, saying that he's merely trying to find out what justice is through questioning, not trying to win an argument. After all, if Socrates were digging for gold, he wouldn't be yelling at him to hurry up.

Thrasymachus laughs and says Socrates "be doing anything but giving a straight answer."

Socrates replies by naming the trap Thrasymachus has set up with his question. By saying Socrates can't answer "duty", "expediency", "advantage", or many other words, he is laying down rules that might be the correct answer.

For example, if someone asked you "What makes 12?" but then follows up with "You can't answer 6 * 2, 3 * 4, 2 * 6, or 4 * 3", then you have no way of answering honestly because they've banned any answer you might've given.

Thrasymachus retorts by saying "So you're going to give me one of the answers I barred."

Socrates answers that he wouldn't be surprised if it happened to be the right one.

Thrasymachus claims he can make a far better definition of justice, but he'll need to be paid for this lesson. Glaucon assures that he can cover for Socrates.

📘 Info: Thrasymachus is a sophist, a common job in ancient Greece. They were traveling teachers that taught people how to sound smart and win arguments. (Kinda like PR coaches.)

Thrasymachus defines justice:

"I say that justice or right is simply what is in the interest of the stronger party."

Socrates raises an edge case to the complaint of Thrasymachus. Polydamas is an athlete and he is stronger than us. It is in his interest to eat beef. We are weaker than him, so he is the stronger party. You can't mean that the same diet is right for us.

Thrasymachus calls Socrates tiresome and explains what he means. Each type of government enacts laws in its own interest: democractic governments enact democratic laws, tyrannical governments enact tyrannical laws, etc. Because the government is the strongest element of every state, then "right" is always the same, the interest of the stronger party.

Firstly, Socrates points out that Thrasymachus said that justice was defined by a type of "interest", which was one of the answers he didn't allow. That aside, he gets Thrasymachus to admit that those in power are fallible and liable to make mistakes. Therefore, they may make laws in their interest if they do it well and against their interest if they do it badly.

From these premises, it logically follows that if a ruling power makes a law that unintentionally goes against his own interest, then it is right for the subjects to both do what he orders but also what is in his interest, which is a contradiction.

Thrasymachus uses a "moving the goalposts" tactic in his counterargument. He says that a ruler never truly makes an error when acting as ruler. This is because when someone makes an error in their role, they aren't fulfilling that role in that particular moment, so justice is still acting in the interest of the ruler because the ruler, when acting as a ruler, will never fail to order in their self interest.

Socrates then claims that every skill aims at not the skill itself but its subject matter. For example, the interest of medicine is not medicine itself but the health of the human body. The doctor's interest, when defining the role of the doctor perfectly, as Thrasymachus had done above, is not making money, but the wellbeing of his patient. Therefore, even with Thrasymachus' definition of self-interest, the ruler, acting in the proper capacity of the ruler, will make laws in the interest of his subjects.

It looks like Socrates has won the argument, but then Thrasymachus says the words:

"Tell me Socrates, have you a nurse?"

This is out of the blue. Why would he ask that? The answer is that Thrasymachus is trying to avoid formal defeat by splitting his argument into two parts. The first part is Thrasymachus arguing justice is one class exploiting another, like a ruler ordering his subjects. When Socrates debunks that, he has to change up his original statement to mean self-interest in its most direct sense in day-to-day life.

Anyways, the nurse statement was a misdirection. It wasn't part of the argument. When Socrates asks why Thrasymachus asks, Thrasymachus just replies with "Well, if you do, she lets you talk nonsense and doesn't wipe your nose. She hasn't even taught you the difference between a sheep and a shepherd."

His point is that a shepherd doesn't care about the interest of the sheep. He only thinks about how he can use the sheep to gain profit. This, he says, is exactly what rulers think of their subjects. And then he argues that the unjust man stands to gain more than the just man in ordinary life.

In private deals, whenever the unjust man makes a contract with a just man, the unjust man will always leave with more. (He serves his personal gain.) In taxes, the unjust man pays less than the just man when both have the same income.

But on a large scale, injustice is admired. Petty crimes of injustice, like kidnapping, theft, and fraud are punished by the law. Yet when a man robs a whole civilization and enslaves them, he is admired for his fortune and labeled as successful. Therefore, injustice, given scope, is justice, supporting the original conclusion.

As I'd mentioned in an earlier paragraph, this is a tactic of changing the original argument. Thrasymachus first said that the ruling government will establish laws of its nature, therefore what is just is what is in the interest of the government. However, he focuses on individuals exploiting individuals once Socrates refutes his first argument. He's completely abandoned the idea of people truly only being a certain role when they are fulfilling that role. With the shepherd analogy, the good shepherd's interest would be in the interest of his flock, and not purely fattening it for profit.

Socrates calls this out, saying that they'd previously agreed authorities desired the welfare of its subjects. He then asks Thrasymachus if he thinks rulers really want to be rulers. Thrasymachus replies affirmatively, but is challenged.

Socrates asks that if rulers were truly in it for their own benefits, why would they want a salary? Each skill is differentiated by what it uniquely brings. Medicine is focused on the health of the human body, but you wouldn't call medicine "wage-earning" if a doctor happened to earn money while helping his patient regain health. You wouldn't call piloting a ship "medicine" if the captain happened to regain his health while sailing.

Every profession then, works towards the interest of its subject, so ruler never does what is best for himself but what is best for his subjects. That's why people don't like accepting authority unless paid in cash or honors, or punished for refusal.

Glaucon questions when a man has ever been punished for refusing a position of authority, and Socrates answers that a good ruler never wants to be seen accepting a position for money/honors because it's not a good public image to desire money or recognition. For the truly good rulers, they accept for duty and avoiding shame, or for the fear of a worse ruler taking office.

The next part of the argument is Socrates wanting to convince Thrasymachus that justice pays more than injustice, but that's probably going to be beyond the scope of this article.

Response

Now for my response: is justice truly the interest of the stronger party? The first thing I'd have to clarify: is justice defined descriptively or prescriptively?

A descriptive definition of justice would observe what people in real life consider it to be. A prescriptive definition of justice would appeal to a higher ideal and use reasoning to persuade you that justice should be this way.

I interpreted the Socrates-Thrasymachus dialogue so far to be largely a prescriptive vs descriptive debate. Thrasymachus is arguing that people will view justice to be whatever the more powerful party does, and Socrates is arguing using ideals. He argues that regardless of who's in power, justice should be defined in a certain way.

Right now, I'd actually side against Socrates. I disagree that justice or morality can be defined in a way that ignores time. I suppose I can respect his way of convincing people through questioning while being respectful, but a lot of it read as him using the weakest definition of his opponent's arguments and then finding a contradiction in there. I think I'd like it a lot better if he steelmanned, because Thrasymachus was definitely onto something.

Thrasymachus' argument that justice is whatever the ruling party defines it as has some merit to it that I resonate with. Socrates refuted this by bringing the contradiction of a ruler making laws that go against his self interest. For my personal ideas right now on what justice should be, it would be the values that enough people in a group can agree on, regardless of any higher reason. Although it could technically go against the "self-interest" of that society by any measurable metric, if everyone agrees on a value, then that is what justice is.

I think this is called relativism. A common counterargument to this view might be "What if the majority of a society agrees that a minority should be punished unfairly?" To that, I'd ask what exactly makes this unjust? And then the obvious answer is that "punishing an innocent minority unfairly is unjust," but this defense pulls from our current society's ideas of what justice is. That's why I believe justice should be defined by human behavior: negotiating, cooperating, and agreeing.

Additionally, this system is self correcting. If, by injustice, a group is oppressed, they'll revolt and the shared value of the society will stabilize to something that would prevent those revolts in the future, like ending oppression for that group.

That's about it. Thanks for reading my first entry about philosophy. Until next time, I am out.