Polemarchus

obligation and coming clean, yet Socrates' counterexample demonstrates that Cephalus' definition is fortuitous. Polemarchus contends that equity is doing admirably to companions who are great and doing damage to adversaries who are terrible, however Socrates highlights that companions can

something that gets everyone's attention.Polemarchus starts debating with Socrates about the nature of justice. They start about: what justice really means, whether justice is actually a good and useful thing to have in the real world. Word.As Polemarchus becomes more and more convinced by Socrates,

justice is from Polemarchus’ interpretation of Simonides’ idea with some modification as the story goes on. According to Polemarchus, justice can be defined as doing good to friends and harm to enemies. (332 d 5 - 7). Below, we will observe the working definition of what justice means in relation to friends v.s. enemies, examine all aspects of the argument, explore Polemarchus’ example of a scenario(s) where this definition of justice applies, and observe a counterargument to Polemarchus’ argument coined

of justice. Polemarchus believed you should treat friends, good and do harm to enemies, Socrates believed the total opposite and starts to question Polemarchus, Socrates has the strongest argument, but Polemarchus’s concept is what I believe in. Polemarchus concept on justice is logical and is how modern day people react to situations. In oppose to my beliefs, Polemarchus beliefs bewildered Socrates, and he wanted to understand fully the beliefs of Polemarchus. Socrates and Polemarchus argue and elaborate

Trolley-Cars and Morality Thanks for your participation yesterday in the trolley-car thought experiment. I know the experiment required you to suspend disbelief and imagine a set of conditions that would not likely apply in the “real” world, but the assumptions built into the thought experiment serve a purpose; they are designed to bring to the surface common moral intuitions that many of us have, and eliciting these moral intuitions helps shed light on Socrates’ method of argument. In the first

What is justice? What qualities does a just person have, that an unjust person lacks? More importantly, who decides which behaviors or actions constitute as just or not? And how does a society utilize this information to construct a just community for all? These questions are essential to the construction of a just society, but prove to be incredibly difficult to agree on. Defining justice in a way that every person can agree is not only unrealistic, but it also has not been achieved since the beginning

another’s injustice.” This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient

justice between Socrates and Polemarchus and identify a problem that arises with justice, “the love of ones own”. To better explain this problem an example derived from Polemarchus’ and Thrasymachus’ versions of justice will be used. I will also briefly touch on the story of The Ring of Gyges to further convey how “the love of ones own” is an obstruction to justice.

The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground

only they reap the benefits of. Fortunately, this dark view of Justice was not the only perspective provided in The Republic. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus all offered their own unique interpretations of the word Justice and what it meant to them. Cephalus defines Justice as “rendering to each what belongs to each and being honest.” (331c) Polemarchus views Justice as “dedication to the common good whereby we help friends and harm enemies” (333d-336a). Glaucon believes that Justice