a)Unpacking Book I: the dramatis personae and the refutation of rule bound (Cephalus), loyalty
bound (Polemarchus) and interest bound (Thrasymachus, example of a group of people known as
sophists. needed to speak well for political influence and was hinged on ability to sway fellow
citizens) conceptions of justice.
-book 1 wants us to acknowledge justice as a good. have us thinking about right sphere for thinking
about justice, and finally through the course of the dialogue an implicit acknowledgement that to
be fully just we must be able to give full account of justice.
*Cephalus. he represents understanding of justice that is comprehended by rule and living up to
expectations. defender of one world view of : justice is fulfilling your duty and obligations as put
out by laws of man.religion. and gods. as speaking the truth/ paying debts to man and god.
-exemplar of certain moderation. lack of theoretical reflection no real full account of why he does
what he does in any convincing way. socrates suggests that cephalus’ way. stephanos 331c. :
example of one who has given weapons to friend and friend goes insane, is it just to give
someone crazy weapons. we cannot define true justice in terms of rule.
*Polemarchus. sort of continuing with cephalus’ lines. under impression that he is giving fuller
account of his father’s account. giving us alternative account actually. justice: in many respects a
question of good will. doing good to your friends and harm to your enemy. central question is one
of loyalties. maintaing good relations with those you deem to be good. problem of understanding
of justice is that because your perceptions are not always correct, your judgment of others
morality is not always correct because the person you’re helping is not always good. second
objection as voiced by socrates: is that question of proper distribution of rewards and benefits. it
cant just be related to quality of ppl involved, but to deeper good. socrates wants us to have more
impartial understanding of good beyond our perception of character. need to be driven by deeper
sense of what is good.
*Thrasymachus: defends understanding of justice that serves person who is an abuser of power.
whoever we might also suggest his character is devoted to sense of honor. he is really irked by
socrates disputations, his fancy footing around issues. wants to tell it like it is. contradiction but
powerful challenge to some of socrates’ positions. justice is advantage of the stronger. might is
right. first opinion is justice advantage of people in superior power. justice is whatever
hegemonies determine it to be. second position is to suggest that there is a thing of justice but it
is opium of people. something that keeps the people down. people follow because they think its
good thing but it juts keeps them differential. central principal is that justice is self interest. he is
representative of his class of sophists(educated people in athens)
-Socrates’ responses are inadequate. sense of tht he is not fully satisfied with direction of
dialogue. rest of republic more full and further articulation of response to thrasymachus.
b) Ring of Gyges account (Glaucon).
-challenge to socrates .
-galucon takes on role of devils advocate. most people if pushed will suggest that justice is just
one of those things we do because of the respectability that it brings. socrates says justice be
something we do for good itself
-glaucon is function of limit
-main point is that if we were given opportunity to be unjust without any consequences we would
want to do so. no intrinsic attraction to justice.