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 the book I. In the Republic, Plato attempts to answer the question “what is justice?” » All of these traits observed in individuals and society are brought forward 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 complex and detailed examples. This essay will analyze Platonic views of justice and determine whether or not it is better to live a just life. He believed that a ruler could not be entirely just unless he lived in a society that was also just. The Republic is written in the form of a play or a conversation or a dialogue, if you prefer. The use of the dialogue format was very useful to Plato in addressing skeptics and dissenting opinions. This also helps show the development of these ideas through discussion and makes it more interesting and easier for the audience to follow, especially as ideas flow and different philosophers enter the conversation with their input on the topic. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay that Socrates and his fellow philosophers expounded 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 puts an end to Polemarchus' idea of ​​antagonizing one's enemies. Thrasymachus takes an interesting position on justice that I don't necessarily agree with. He argues that justice rests on the interests of leaders or those who hold power in society. He reformulates his argument after a short conversation with Socrates to associate justice with something that benefits someone or something else. He explains this in terms of a subject and its ruler: "each declares that what is just for his subjects is what is advantageous to himself – the ruler – and punishes anyone who deviates from this as lawless and unjust ". From this, Thrasymachus declares that justice is such a dynamic that it can only work in favor of the ruler, and never in favor of the subjects. However, this is a thought with which I do not agree: I believe that it is possible for justice to work in favor of the least by working together to achieve the common good of society. Everything we do or accomplish does not benefit the powerful, but rather the common good of society and the happiness and well-being of ordinary people. Socrates refutes Thrasymachus' argument that justice is what he says by pointing out that Rulers do not always know what is best and often make mistakes in their laws and decisions. He goes on to argue that injustice is not as strong as justice since justice is equal to wisdom and virtue, which together are stronger than ignorance (which is represented by this injustice). Furthermore, Socrates points out that injustice often leads to conflict and division within groups, which is considered the opposite of justice. Socrates partially succeeds in refuting Thrasymachus' argument, except for his failure to address the justice argument regarding rulers (or the strong). At first, Thrasymachus believes he has a solid definition of justice through his argument that “justice is nothing.”other than what is advantageous for the strongest. This part of Thrasymachus' argument initially makes sense given the context of the situation since the ruling class is the one with all the power – the one who makes the laws – it decides what justice is and sets that standard that the people must follow. Their subjects are expected to blindly follow and do whatever they say, including upholding laws they deem unjust – in doing so, setting an example of justice. However, after Thrasymachus is dismissed from his initial argument by Socrates, he abandons this initial position. We then come to a point that even if justice is considered 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 behaving in accordance with the law, laws not only benefit the powerful, but also contribute to the maintenance of a society functioning in a manner ordered and composed of productive individuals - which undoubtedly. benefits everyone in the community. However, during this time, certain laws were put in place against certain individuals or groups, so by following these laws, injustice was essentially created by following the laws, or being righteous. Thrasymachus adjusts his argument: “justice is truly the good of others”. This transforms Thrasymachus' previous position that whatever is good for the strong (or rulers in this case). Thrasymachus expanded his argument to make justice more broadly inclusive – whatever is good for others rather than for the strong – which comes close to what we could probably define as justice today. It was mentioned earlier that leaders can be wrong about their interests. or create unjust laws, which is perfectly understandable given human nature and the tendency to make mistakes. The people, by honoring these “erroneous” laws created by their leaders, are essentially acting to hinder the interests of the strongest, whether they know it or not. Socrates says: “According to your story, it is therefore not only a question of doing what is advantageous for the strongest, but also the opposite: what is not advantageous.” This argument of Thrasymachus contradicts itself by leading us to the conclusion that justice is now in the hands of the weak, who are in turn at the service of the strong. From there, justice can work in favor or against leaders – depending on their intelligence and wisdom. This refutation coming from Socrates essentially nullifies Thrasymachus' initial definition of justice. This then forces Thrasymachus to adjust his definition or find an entirely new one. If Thrasymachus were to initially choose to define "someone else" as a person who was wise – based on the fact that Socrates had proposed the counter-claim of wisdom as justice – then this would help Thrasymachus's claims then that he deepens his argument by noting that the aim of the man who is not righteous is to obtain all that he can for himself, and this is wise based on the fact that he pursues all that which is in his interest. Socrates then draws Thrasymachus' attention to the ignorant: “And what about an ignorant person? Doesn't he want to do better than a well-informed person and an ignorant person? If someone is ignorant, they pretend to be superior to everyone else, even though they may actually be inferior. By claiming to be superior, they prove that they are reckless and unintelligent. The well-informed man, on the other hand, knows that such assertions should not be made. Both Thrasymachus and Socrates agree that man”.