Page 12 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Western Political Thought

Notes concept. Subsequently, he elaborated the application of the concept and its realization within an
individual and the state. Justice in the individual was defined analogously to justice in the state.
Different Definitions of Justice
The text opens with a discussion between Socrates and Cephalus on the subject of old age and
wealth. Cephalus, old and prosperous, pointed out that wealth by itself did not make one happy,
but provided comforts that made life easy. It enabled one to lead a good life and to do what was
morally right. Cephalus defined justice as telling the truth, being honest in word and deed and
paying one’s debts.
Socrates dismissed the argument effortlessly by pointing out that in some cases it might be harmful
to speak the truth or return one’s belongings, through examples like returning weapons to a mad
person, or telling the truth when it was better to conceal it. He did not show that honesty in word
and deed was not justice, but rather that such honesty could be harmful. Since all his listeners
tacitly accepted the (unstated) argument that justice had to be beneficial, or at least not harmful, he
was able to persuade them that Cephalus’ view would not be acceptable.
At this point, Cephalus gave up, but the argument was continued by his son Polemarchus. By
altering the definition provided by Cephalus, Polemarchus pointed out that justice meant “giving
each man his due” or “what was fitting”. In short, justice was “doing the right thing”, which he
qualified to mean doing “good to friends and harm to enemies”. Polemarchus reiterated an acceptable
part of Greek morality as evident from Solon’s prayer, “May I be pleasant to my friends, hateful to
my enemies”, though this certainly contradicted the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount.
With the help of three arguments, Socrates demolished the views of Polemarchus. First, helping
friends might also involve ignoble acts like stealing and telling a lie. Second, the idea of being
good to friends and bad to enemies was difficult to apply, because a person could make mistakes
about one’s friends and enemies. A supposed friend might not actually be a friend in reality.
Moreover, a person who could do the maximum help could also do the maximum harm. Third, a
just person should not harm anyone because those who get injured become even more unjust.
Justice was human excellence, and a just person could not harm anybody, including the self. Once
again, Socrates did not disprove the concept, but only its application. He merely persuaded
Polemarchus to accept what he was saying. Polemarchus could have retorted that spanking a
child or a pet dog might not be harmful (from which he refrained, perhaps out of civility). In fact,
nowhere did Socrates provide a proper and clear description of Good.
The discussions continued with an interjection from Thrasymachus, a Sophist. After making sure
that he would be paid a fee, he agreed and defined justice or right as the interests of the stronger
party, namely the ruler. While the strong made all the rules, the weak—the subjects—merely
obeyed them. Thrasymachus explained his notion as follows:
Each type of government enacts laws that are in its own interest, a democracy democratic
laws, a tyranny tyrannical ones and so on; and in enacting these laws they make it
quite plain that what is “right” for their subjects is what is in the interest of themselves,
the rulers, and if anyone deviates from this he is punished as a lawbreaker and
“wrongdoer”. That is what I mean when I say that “right” is the same thing in all
states, namely the interest of the established government; and government is the
strongest element in each state, and so if we argue correctly we see that “right” is
always the same, the interest of the stronger party.
Socrates responded by pointing out that rulers might make mistakes by not being able to identify
their interests and frame laws contrary to their advantage, thus putting Thrasymachus in a tough
spot. Instead of following Clitophon’s advice to redefine justice as “whatever the strong believe to
be in their interest”, Thrasymachus made things difficult by charging off in the wrong direction.
He replied that rulers by definition could not make mistakes, and if they did so they could no

6 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY