1

Outline of Book I of Platos Republic:

The Republic is a dialogue, or if you want, a play. As such it has characters and people who play
important roles (and some who seem to play no role at all). You may find a list of these
characters on the opening page of Book I. The main characters are these: Socrates, Glaucon,
Adeimantus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, and Cephalus. Socrates is the main character, and
was in fact the most famous philosopher of all time! (Some may disagree and say Aristotle, or
Plato are the MOST famous. I wont argue with them.) Socrates was Platos teacher, and he
wrote nothing. The most valuable source of information regarding Socrates comes down to us
from Platos writings, The Republic included. (Plato wrote many many of these dialogues).
So, Socrates is the philosopher.
Glaucon is Platos brother and is the one who spends the most time talking with Socrates in the
Republic. Glaucon seems to be the sort of guy who was interested in making a name for himself.
Adeimantus is also Platos brother. He seems to be a lover of money.
Cephalus is a rich old man.
Polemarchus is Cephaluss son.
Thrasymachus is a famous teacher of rhetoric, and quite the bully.
Anyway, Socrates and Glaucon were at a festival to one of the goddesses of the city of Athens,
when Thrasymachus and the others meet them and they all get together to talk. The discussion is
first about old age and wealth. Cephalus then says that as one gets older and approaches all the
difficulties of old age toward the end of life, he cannot but help thinking about the next life and
whether or not there are punishments in Hades (the netherworld). This is the introduction of the
discussion of justice and the theme of the whole Republic. Money, for example, seems to make
it all easier because it allows one to avoid deceiving someone else or owing a sacrifice to a god
or money to another person. So money, it seems, helps to clear ones debts, both in this life and
in the next.
Then Cephalus provides a definition of justice that he thinks supports his views: justice is
always speaking the truth and paying ones debts. This is the first definition of justice.
But can this definition really serve as a definition? Can we think of a counterexample? Is there
not some situation where not unconditionally telling the truth is in fact the just thing to do?
What about paying back ones debts? Can we really say that one should always (ALWAYS) pay
back EVERYTHING that we owe to people, especially when they set the terms?
There are cases, for example, when one should not always tell the truthsay when some violent
person is looking for some innocent person who is hiding. Should you really tell them where the
innocent is? Most of us would not think so.

2
Also, can we think of cases where paying back what we owe to people would in fact do more
harm than good? If a friend asks me to hold his car keys and then, hours later, returns to me,
highly inebriated, and demands to have them back. Should I give them to him? I hope all of you
would withhold the keys and let our friend sleep it off.
After this discussion, Polemarchus joins in and asserts that justice is giving to each what is
owed to him. This is a variation on Cephaluss definition. It is also the second definition of
justice given in the text. Socrates never really objects to this definition. He does however argue
that not every application of this definition would be appropriate. He asks Polemarchus to give
some concrete examples of what we owe to others and when, he then moves the argument
forward from there.
Polemarchus then says that friends owe to friends to give them benefits or otherwise do good to
them (not harm). He then says that to enemies, we should give harm to them (not good to them).
Socrates then goes off on a bit of a tangent and asks Polemarchus what justice is useful for. This
discussion then leads Polemarchus to contradict himselfthat is, to say that a just person is a
thiefthis is the consequence of Polemarchus account of justice, at least as far as Polemarchus
understands it.
Socrates then argues that on the basis of doing good to friends and harm to enemies, it sometimes
is the case that we are mistaken about who our friends are and who our enemies are. We can be
mistaken about who is good and who is bad, who is just and who is unjust. Can it really be the
role of the just man to harm anyone?
At which point Thrasymachus interrupts and says that Justice is the advantage of the stronger
that might makes right. This is the third definition. Socrates responds by saying that yes
indeed justice is an advantage but it is not the advantage of the strongerit is the advantage of
the weakerwho benefits from justice. Do rulers really rule to their own advantage or to the
advantage of their subjects? Are rulers infallible when prescribing laws? These questions lead
Socrates to say something like the following: since rulers have no advantage from being a ruler,
they must receive a wagetheir benefit is that they are not ruled by someone worse than they
are.