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)...

After long discussion, Socrates concluded that: "A moral person doesn't set himself up as superior to people who are like him, but only to people who are unlike him; an immoral person, on the other hand, sets himself up as superior to people who are like him as well as to people who are unlike him." (p. 34)
Thus through this first chapter of the book, we come to understand that Socrates' idea of a moral person is based on his own original thinking and conclusion drawn from dialogue. He didn't believe in one exact definition of morality but believed in drawing some attributes of a moral person through discussion and dialogue. For this purpose, he found the loopholes in traditional view of morality and based his definition on long dialogue with those who believed in the former. He believed that morality was good and immorality bas because "immorality makes for mutual conflict, hatred, and antagonism, while moral behavior makes for concord and friendship" (p. 40). Thus Socrates maintained that morality could not be judged through truthfulness or return of borrowed items, it had to be based on character attributes of the person. He felt that a moral person was one whose action led to something good and beneficial while immoral person's action led to exactly the opposite. In other words, it is the actions that make a person. If an action leads to positive results from highest number of people, we can claim that it was a moral action and vice versa. Socrates' main argument was not in favor of his view of morality but rather it was in opposition of the prevailing view.

Reference

Plato. Republic. (1994). Translated by Robin Waterfield; Oxford University Press. Oxford