The central theme seen in Plato's Republic is to define different virtues and ideas that are considered important in society and life, namely justice in Book I. In Republic Plato attempts to answer the question “what is justice?” All these traits seen in individuals and society are proposed in examples based on Plato's idea of ​​a utopian society in ancient Greece. Plato explains what these traits are and how they fit into this society through very intricate and detailed examples. This essay will analyze Plato's conceptions of justice and whether or not it is better to live a just life. He believed that a ruler could not be entirely just unless he was in a society that was also just. The Republic is written in the form of a play or a conversation as a dialogue, if you prefer. The use of the dialogue format was very useful for Plato in dealing with skeptics and dissenting opinions. It also helps to show the development of these ideas through discussion and makes it more interesting and easier for the audience to follow them, especially when ideas are exchanged and different philosophers enter the conversation with their contributions on the topic. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Socrates and his fellow philosophers set out in Book I of Plato's Republic to find a definition of justice. After some time in Book I, Thrasymachus joins the conversation after Socrates rejects Polemarchus' idea that one should spite one's enemies. Thrasymachus takes an interesting position on justice that I don't necessarily agree with. Argues that justice is based on the interests of rulers or those who hold power in society. He reforms his argument after a brief conversation with Socrates to link justice to something that benefits someone or something else. He explains this in terms of the subject and his ruler, “each declares that what is right for his subjects is what is advantageous for himself – the ruler – and punishes anyone who deviates from this as unlawful and unjust.” Based on this, Thrasymachus declares that justice is such a dynamic that it can only operate in favor of the sovereign and never in favor of the subjects. However, this is a thought that I do not share: I believe that it is possible for justice to work in favor of the minor by working together to achieve the common good of society. Not everything we do or achieve is for the benefit of the powerful, but rather is often for the common good of society and for the happiness and well-being of ordinary people. Socrates refutes Thrasymachus' argument that justice is what he says it is, pointing out that rulers do not always know what is best and often make mistakes in their laws and rulings. He goes on to state that injustice is not as strong as justice since justice equals wisdom and virtue, which together are stronger than ignorance (which is represented by this injustice). In addition to this, Socrates points out that injustice often leads to conflict and division in groups, which is seen as the opposite of justice. Socrates partially succeeds in refuting Thrasymachus' argument, with the exception of not addressing the topic of justice pertaining to rulers (or the strong). Initially, Thrasymachus believes he has a solid definition of justice through his argument that "justice is nothing." other than what is advantageous to the stronger." This part of Thrasymachus' argument initially makes sense given the context of the situation since the ruling class is the one thatshe has all the power – the one who makes the laws – decides what justice is and sets this standard for people to follow. Their subjects are expected to follow and do essentially everything they say, including upholding laws they deem unjust, setting an example of justice in doing so. However, after Thrasymachus is rejected from his initial argument by Socrates, he abandons this initial position. We then come to the point that even if justice is believed to be that which follows the laws, it does not necessarily lead to the benefit of another. This is based on the fact that, although justice is defined as a law-abiding citizen who behaves according to the law, laws not only benefit the powerful, but help maintain an orderly, functioning society of productive individuals – who are likely it benefits everyone who lives in the community. However, during this time some laws were instituted against certain individuals or groups, so by following these laws, injustice was essentially created through following the laws or being just. Thrasymachus corrects his argument: “justice is really the good of another”. This transforms Thrasymachus' earlier position of what is good for the strong (or rulers in this case). Thrasymachus expanded his argument to make justice more inclusive – everything that is good for another instead of the strong – which is getting closer to what one would probably call justice today. It was mentioned earlier that rulers might be wrong about their interests. or create unjust laws, which is perfectly understandable given human nature and the tendency to make mistakes. People, by honoring these “wrong” laws created by their rulers, essentially act to inhibit the interests of the stronger, whether they know it or not. Socrates states: “according to your account, therefore, it is not only a question of doing what is advantageous for the stronger, but also the opposite: what is not advantageous”. This argument of Thrasymachus contradicts itself, leading us to the conclusion that justice is now in the hands of the weak, who in turn are at the service of the strong. Based on this, justice can act for or against rulers, depending on their intelligence and wisdom. This refutation coming from Socrates essentially nullifies Thrasymachus' initial definition of justice. This then requires Thrasymachus to modify his definition or find an entirely new one. If Thrasymachus were to initially choose to define “someone else” as a wise person – based on the fact that Socrates had offered the counterclaim of wisdom as justice – then this would aid Thrasymachus' claims as he continues his argument by noting that the goal of man who is not righteous is to get all he can for himself, and this is wise on the basis that he pursues all that is in his interest Socrates then proceeds to call Thrasymachus's attention to the ignorant: “And what of a ignorant person? Don't you want to do better than both a knowledgeable and an ignorant person?” If someone is ignorant, he claims to be superior to everyone, even though in reality he may be inferior. By claiming to be superior, they demonstrate that they are unwise and unintelligent. The knowledgeable man, on the other hand, knows better than to make these claims. Thrasymachus and Socrates both agree that the intelligent man is better than the ignorant man and does injustice only to the unjust. This leads us to the conclusion that injustice is, in some sense, ignorance. The unjust only serve to promote the belief that they are ignorant by constantly trying to humiliate others and exalt themselves. Socrates continues to point out that injustice separates people. If”.