Polemarchus’s understanding of Justice in Plato’s “Republic”, is mostly based on the father’s teachings. He focuses more on the collective than the individual, and helps friends to harm enemies. Polemarchus’s definition is not a good one against Socrates because it’s unclear and very shaky.
Polemarchus defines justice as “an eye for an eye” which is in line with his father Cephalus belief of “speaking the truth and giving back what’s owed”. Cephalus’ definition is not without flaws. It is clear from this example in the book that if a man takes a friend’s weapon while he has a sound mind and then demands the weapon back when that person is in a state of madness, it is wrong to give the item back. Cephalus defines justice as giving what’s owed. Socrates explains that this can lead to some very bad outcomes. For example, the person who held the weapon could die if they returned it in an aggressive manner. Socrates says that at the conclusion of this paragraph, you should not tell the person what is true or the entire truth. Doing so would inadvertently do more harm to the other party.
Polemarchus’ argument that justice is “doing pretty good to friends and harm to enemies” is based on this. Polemarchus’ argument that justice is primarily “doing fairly good to people you like and harming those who are not” is founded on this.
The definition of justice is to do good to allies and bad to friends. It is difficult to comprehend this concept because of its inherent problems. This definition has some flaws, including the appearance of friendliness and the reality of who’s an enemy.
This is an important issue that will not be resolved. In reality, someone may appear as a friend when in fact they are an enemy. Or vice versa.
Socrates points this out here: “But don’t sort of human actually make mistakes about this, so that many kind of seem to be good but they are essentially not and vice versa” which Polemarchus then agrees that people definitely do really make mistakes on who specifically is fairly good and who specifically is bad. Socrates states that “But aren’t there people who make mistakes?” Socrates then asks: “But many people mistakenly believe that they are good when in fact, they really aren’t and vice versa.” Polemarchus also agrees, saying that most people do make mistakes.
Polemarchus basically took Cephalus’ definition of justice as helping an individual, which basically means to tell the Truth and pay back what is owed. Polemarchus then shifted the definition to include the general good of all the people.
Polemarchus slightly alters his definition to “people who basically appear good but for all intents, purposes are bad” in the pages that follow. The same issue as before is that it is impossible to know who someone is based on their appearance.
Polemarchus also believes in this new expanded definition, which would indicate that Polemarchus considers men to be either good or bad. He does not think of bad men as being bad. This could result in a good man hurting another definitely good man who has done nothing very wrong.
Socrates also refutes a similar idea using animal analogies and the fact that if a dog was actually hurt, it would be either worse or better. That is quite significant. Polemarchus replies that a dog’s virtue makes it worse, which is a significant response. This implies when a human being is injured they don’t become more just. They become the exact opposite.
Socrates continues to ask, if Justice in general is a virtue of the human being. Polemarchus agreed that justice was a virtue of humanity. Socrates uses analogies to show that harming a person will not do anything but make an unjust man even worse. Polemarchus agrees that harming an unjust person is the best way to make him more fair. Socrates, however, disagrees and says that punishing them will only make them worse.
This would mean that justice was only for the unjust. For the most part, this implies that justice is not being done but instead, injustice. This is demonstrated here by Socrates when he states: “It’s not the fault of the just to harm his friend or anyone but that of the unjust.”
Polemarchus’s essay shows that his definition of justice does not represent justice at all or justice performed by a man who is just, but instead it represents justice against an unjust man. This definition is therefore unable to stand up when Socrates disproves with examples and metaphors which show its obvious failure.
