This paper analyzes the treatment of morality and justice in Book I of Plato's Republic, focusing on Socrates' systematic dismantling of conventional moral views. The paper traces Socrates' dialogues with Polemarchus, who defends the traditional notion of helping friends and harming enemies, and Thrasymachus, who argues that morality serves the interests of the stronger party. Through close reading of key passages from Robin Waterfield's translation, the paper demonstrates how Socrates uses dialectical reasoning to expose contradictions in conventional definitions of morality and moves toward a character-based understanding in which moral actions are those that produce broadly beneficial outcomes.
The paper models close reading of a philosophical dialogue: rather than summarizing the Republic broadly, it isolates specific exchanges, quotes them precisely, and then explains what logical move Socrates is making. This technique — quote, contextualize, analyze — is the foundation of effective philosophy essay writing at the undergraduate level.
The paper opens with the conventional definition of morality under attack, then works chronologically through Book I's main interlocutors. Each section presents one position (Polemarchus's traditional view, Thrasymachus's power thesis) and immediately follows with Socrates' counterargument. The conclusion synthesizes Socrates' emerging positive view — morality as good character producing broadly beneficial actions — without overclaiming a final Socratic definition.
Plato's Republic focuses on the subjects of the good life and what makes a good man. In the first chapter, "Convention under Attack," the traditional view of morality is placed under scrutiny. It must be noted that morality in this context is explained in terms of justice, and it is the debate on justice that dominates the chapter and conveys Socrates' views on the subject.
Socrates challenges the conventional view of morality by arguing that it does not simply mean "to tell the truth and to give back whatever one has borrowed" (p. 8). In his day, the conventional view held that truthfulness and returning borrowed items constituted morality, but Socrates disagrees. He offers an illustrative example to make his point. Polemarchus, however, maintains the traditional view, clinging to his interpretation 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 inherently connected to morality. Rather, it is giving back what is appropriate that matters. If, for instance, a person borrows weapons from a friend and the friend later loses his mind and demands them back, it would clearly be dangerous to comply. Socrates therefore concludes that giving back what is appropriate is what Simonides meant by the word "owed." Yet what one owes remains a vague and contested concept.
According to Polemarchus, morality consists in doing "good" to friends and harm to enemies: "it has to be the art of giving benefit and harm to friends and enemies respectively" (p. 10). Polemarchus represents tradition here — he says what he is conventionally expected to believe. Unlike Socrates, he does not possess the capacity for original thought that drives philosophical inquiry.
Socrates was not interested in convention; he sought the truth. This prompted a deeper debate on the meaning of "friends" and "enemies." On the surface, doing good to friends and harm to enemies seems a simple and uncomplicated principle. But when one tries to determine who genuinely qualifies as a friend and who as an enemy, the concept quickly becomes far more complicated than it first appeared.
Socrates presses Polemarchus directly: "So Simonides claims that morality is doing good to one's friends and harm to one's enemies, does he?" (p. 10). He is not satisfied with this oversimplification. He argues that the terms "friends" and "enemies" are too general, and that one can never be certain who truly belongs in each category. Calling someone moral simply because he is good to his friends is problematic, because the same person may become unable to help a friend in certain situations — would he then be considered immoral?
Socrates posed such penetrating questions to Polemarchus, who remained committed to the traditional view. Socrates raised them not merely to be combative, but to demonstrate the inadequacy of convention. He asked, for example: "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). His aim was to explore every avenue of the problem in order to separate the right from the wrong.
Rather than simply offering his own definition, Socrates preferred dialogue as a method, because through conversation he could show why he rejected certain definitions rather than just asserting an alternative. He also exposed a troubling logical consequence of the traditional view: if a moral person is someone who can keep money safely, does that not also imply that the same person is capable of stealing it? If a person can defend himself, he is equally capable of attacking. By the same standard, a moral person would simultaneously be a thief — a contradiction that undermines the conventional framework entirely.
Through the first chapter of the Republic, we come to understand that Socrates' idea of a moral person is based on his own original thinking and conclusions drawn from dialogue. He did not subscribe to a single fixed definition of morality, but preferred to arrive at the attributes of a moral person through sustained discussion. For this purpose, he identified the weaknesses in the traditional view and built his perspective through long dialogue with those who defended it.
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.