Morality Plato- Republic Plato's Republic

Morality PLATO- REPUBLIC Plato's Republic focuses on the subject of a good life and what makes a good man. In the first Chapter "Convention under Attack," the traditional view of morality is attacked. It must be made clear that morality is explained in terms of justice and it is the debate on justice that dominates the chapter and offers Socrates' views on morality.

Socrates' challenges the conventional view of morality by saying that morality doesn't mean 'to tell the truth and to give back whatever one has borrowed.' (p.8) in his days, conventional view suggested that truthfulness and returning items one had borrowed constituted morality but Socrates doesn't agree with this. He offers an example in this connection that illustrates his point.

However Polemarchus still sticks with the traditional view and rather his misinterpretation of Simonides's remark that "it is right to give back what is owed." (p.9) Socrates believed that returning what one had borrowed is not connected with morality, rather it is giving back what is appropriate that matters. In other words, if a person borrows weapons from a friend and the friend goes insane and then asks for the weapons, we all know it would be dangerous to return them.

Thus Socrates concludes that giving back what is appropriate is what Simonides meant by the word "owed." But what one owes is still a vague concept. According to Polemarchus, it is the idea of doing "good" to friends and doing harm to enemies that constituted morality. "...it has to be the art of giving benefit and harm to friends and enemies respectively.'" (p.10) We must notice that Polemarchus represents the tradition here. He is saying what he is traditionally expected to say and believe.

Polemarchus doesn't possess the wisdom or capacity of original thought as Socrates does. Socrates was not interested in convention, rather he sought the truth and this prompted a debate on the subject of friends and enemies. To say that one must do 'good 'to friends and harm to enemies is a very simple and uncomplicated concept.

But how does one know who is a friend and who is an enemy and when we try to seek answers to these questions, the concept of friends and enemies becomes more complicated than it first appeared. Socrates challenges the view asking Polemarchus, "So Simonides claims that morality is doing good to one's friends and harm to one's enemies, does he?' (p. 10). But Socrates is not satisfied with this oversimplification.

He feels that the word friends and enemies are too general and one cannot be certain who is a friend and who is not. He argued that calling someone a moral person because he is good to his friends is wrong since it may cause the same person to become immoral when he cannot help his friend. In other words, there are many situations when a moral person would want to help his friend but would be unable to do so.

In such a situation, would this person become immoral? He posed such questions to Polemarchus who certainly believed in the traditional view but Socrates' reasons for raising questions were grounded in unconventionality. He wanted to prove the futility of tradition when he asked question such as "...What can we use morality for? What does it provide us with? What would you say morality is good for in times of peace?' (p.11) Socrates didn't want to leave any issues un-discussed or unturned.

He wanted to explore all possible ways in which a problem could be explained to separate the wrong from right. It would have been easier for him had he just given us his definition of morality. But through dialogue, he could explain why he had chosen a certain definition of morality and not the other. Socrates argued that the problem with traditional view is that it leaves many areas unexplored.

If a moral person, according to traditional concept, is someone who can keep money safely, doesn't it suggest that the same person can also steal it? If a person is capable of defending himself, it clearly means he is capable of attacking too. If this is true that by the same standard, a person who can keep money can also steal it. Thus a moral person would be at the same time a thief.

How can a thief then be moral? After much debate, Socrates states that: "So the claim that it's right and moral to give back to people what they are owed -- if this is taken to mean that a moral person owes harm to his enemies and help to his friends -- turns out to be a claim no clever person would make. I mean, it's false: we've found that it is never right to harm anyone.' (p.

15) Socrates' own view of morality is lost among heap of discussion and arguments. It appeared that his main purpose was to contradict the views presented by others and was even called a "bully" by Thrasymachus. (p. 21) Thrasymachus was the one person who posed stiff resistance to Socrates' point-of-view on morality. He argued that morality could only be explained in the relationship between the strong and the weak. He felt that morality was a device for the stronger to gain advantage.

He also claimed that, "In any and every situation, a moral person is worse off than an immoral one." (p.26) He repeatedly claimed that, "....immorality -- if practiced on a large enough scale -- has more power, license, and authority than morality. And as I said at the beginning, morality is really the advantage of the stronger party, while immorality is profitable and advantageous to oneself." (p.

27) Socrates however rejected this view as he maintained that in any relationship between stronger and the weaker, the stronger is usually working for the benefit of his subjects. He used the example of a doctor and banker to clarify that "...no branch of expertise or form of authority procures benefit for itself; as we were saying some time ago, it procures and enjoins benefit for its subject." (p.30) Socrates also maintained that morality was a good state while immorality a bad one but this view was vehemently challenged.

After long discussion, Socrates concluded that: "A moral person doesn't set himself up as superior to people who are like.