Seemingly to Socrates, every definition must be questioned. Regarding the substantial topic of justice, it is nearly impossibly to present a clear-cut definition that applies to all situations. In discussions with Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, Socrates could not help but question their attempted definitions for justice. He always found a loophole, some sort of situation where their version of justice could not prevail and could not seem valid.
After speaking with Cephalus about justice, Socrates moves on to speak with his son, Polemarchus. Initially, Polemarchus’ definition is similar to that of his father’s. Polemarchus believes that justice means that you should help friends, and harm enemies. Knowing Socrates, he clearly was not going to willingly accept this definition; there are always exceptions.
According to Socrates, depending on the occupation of an individual, there are multitude of ways to “help friends” and “harm enemies”. Additionally, Socrates and Polemarchus agree that people will often choose a professional in their field over a just man to help them. For example, if someone wants to purchase a horse and they need assistance, they will likely choose someone who has experience selling horses over a just man to guide them with their decision. Thus, Socrates concludes that in many instances, justice seems to be of
…show more content…
Oftentimes, it is hard to tell who are true friends and who are true enemies. How does one know another person is genuinely good or bad? Frankly, it is extremely difficult to discern, and there is no sort of gold standard that can immediately detect the authenticity of a person. Ergo, when people are trying to act just in Polemarchus’ terms, they may not even be helping their so called friends because they can potentially be malicious people who do not deserve “good.” Hence, this puts the whole idea of friendship into question, and brings up for issue of friendship being based on