Plato and Socrates engage in a debate over the definition of justice. Throughout the dialogue Socrates never forms a single definition for justice but creates many individual definitions instead. Many people bring up valid definitions, but each time Socrates finds a hole in their explanation, he highlights their faulty logic. Through this process Plato lets the reader see that all of these definitions are somewhat valid and the loopholes just reveal how complicated justice is and how difficult it is to define.

The first way that justice is defined is “to speak the truth and repay what is borrowed” (Plato, 5). Cephalus and Polemarchus explain this first definition with lots of confidence. Socrates immediately sees the hole in this definition which is that a person should never repay a borrowed weapon to someone who has gone crazy. This very specific debate leads to a large conversation. Plato is using Socratic dialogue which is all of these questions and loopholes to let the reader not just accept one definition but to look harder. He is not just teaching that justice is complicated but also that looking for answers is complicated.

Later on there is a perfect example of how important it is to have an open mind when looking for answers. Polemarchus concludes that justice is “benefiting one’s friends and harming one’s enemies” (Plato, 9). He becomes pretty confident in that definition but Socrates will not accept it. He questions this and allows Polemarchus to think about whether benefitting a bad friend is truly justice. Once again Polemarchus accepts this critique and refines his definition to say more specifically that justice is benefitting good friends and hurting enemies who are bad. This is a great example of how Socrates pushed someone to think beyond their initial instincts and dig harder for a more specific definition.

When Thrasymachus enters the conversation a long debate ensues because he is very confident in what justice means to him. Thrasymachus says that; “Justice is none other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (Plato, 15). Socrates tries to disprove Thrasymachus’s point and he uses many examples to explain that people who are in charge of others do not always do what is advantageous for the stronger. One of the best techniques that Socrates uses is coming up with specific examples to refute this definition. In one example he says that a ship’s captain will take actions that benefit the ship and sailors instead of himself because that is his job. He says that the captain is an example of justice because he is doing what is right and yet his actions are not advantageous for him who is the stronger. Thrasymachus is then left in a corner because everything Socrates has said is true but yet he is still confident in his definition.

What is interesting is that Thrasymachus gets upset with Socrates for being so critical of everyone else. He is frustrated that Socrates who seems all knowing cannot give his own fool-proof definition of justice. It seems that Socrates will never give a perfect definition because there is no perfect definition. Plato uses socratic dialogue to teach that the best way to gather an answer is through questions and discussion but there is never one right answer.