A paraphrase of the opening dialogue in The Republic

(NB: I have taken huge liberties with the text in these dialogues. They are very different from the actual texts themselves, but I have tried to outline some of the key arguments in the order in which they appear in the text and to maintain the sense of dialogue. My aim was to give you an introduction to the ideas discussed and to use those ideas as a catalyst for your own thoughts.)

Cephalus: Justice is being truthful and returning what one owes.

Socrates: But you would not return weapons you owe to a mad friend.

Polemarchus: What we owe people is to help our friends and harm our enemies. That’s what justice is! 

Socrates: That’s not true. (a) We don’t think it is appropriate to harm our enemies when we are cooking or doing medicine. And (b) we often do not know who our friends and enemies are. We may treat those whom we only think are our friends or enemies well or badly. Would this be justice? It does not seem to be just to treat anyone badly, not even an enemy.

Thrasymachus: Justice is what is beneficial to the stronger. Justice is different under different political regimes according to the laws, which are made to serve the interests of the strong.

Socrates: So, is justice what the stronger think is beneficial to them or what is actually beneficial to them? Don’t the strong rulers make mistakes and sometimes create laws that do not serve their advantage? 

Thrasymachus: But truly strong people are those who don’t make mistakes about such things.

Socrates: But when we’re engaged in arts and crafts, we do what is good for its subjects, not what is good for the artist. 

Thrasymachus: That’s not true, Shepherds, for example are Shepherds for the benefit of themselves, not the sheep. 

Socrates: The shepherd’s concern for his sheep is different from his concern to make money. First, he must look after his sheep, only then can he worry about making money.

Thrasymachus: Whatever, therefore injustice is better than justice. The unjust person who commits injustice undetected is always happier than the just person. Imagine a tyrant who has the power to fulfil all his desires.

Socrates: But tyrants aren’t the best rulers. The best rulers don’t really want to rule. They only do so because they feel they have to – because everyone else is worse than they are. The just life is better than the unjust life for three reasons: (i) the just man is wise and good, and the unjust man is ignorant and bad; (ii) injustice produces internal disharmony which prevents effective actions; (iii) virtue is excellence at a thing’s function and the just person lives a happier life than the unjust person, since he performs the various functions of the human soul well. But this discussion is a waste of time because we need a good definition of justice before we can decide whether the just life is better than the unjust life.

Glaucon: I’m not persuaded by any of these arguments. There are three kinds of good things: things that are good in themselves, things good both in themselves and for their consequences, and things good only for their consequences. Which group is justice in?

Socrates: Justice is good in itself and for its consequences.

Glaucon: OK, so, how is justice good in itself? Justice is just what weak people, who are afraid of suffering, talk about. People only act justly because it’s necessary for the consequences. There is a story that a shepherd, one of the ancestors of King Gyges, found a ring on a dead man, and when he put that ring on, the shepherd became invisible. Imagine if you had that ring – you could get away with whatever you wanted. If justice really were good in itself, then, were a good man to put the ring on, he would still be just, but I don’t believe that there is anyone in the world who would not do terrible things if they knew they wouldn’t be caught. People only want to be just because they want people to think that they’re just. It doesn’t matter whether they actually are just. So, I’ll say it again. Justice is only good for its consequences.

Adiemantus: I agree with Glaucon. Someone who was unjust but still managed to keep a good reputation would certainly be happier than someone who was actually just.