Dissecting Plato's Perception of Justice in The Republic

In The Republic Plato constructs his argument through an analogy between a city and the soul on what justice means to him. The two main questions that drive the dialogue between philosophers are, “What is justice?” and “Is justice preferable to injustice?” Plato’s thesis of The Republic is that justice is about one’s inner harmony with the tripartite of the soul and this is seen through his analogy of the city. Instead of allowing equal value to each virtue, Plato makes the virtue of wisdom the most important, causing people who possess the other virtues seem less valuable. So there is a disparity in those getting privileges, which is unjust for people in the working class. Although Plato would counter that an Aristocracy society is the most just in providing all citizens with a function and being a part of a community that gives each person a purpose. Still, Plato’s argument fails to recognize an Aristocracy as a

Polemarchus disputes that justice is helping one’s friends and harming one’s enemies. However, Plato goes through a series of situations, using examples that show we may not know exactly who our friends are and who our enemies are. Plato asks Thrasymachus what is the nature of justice and he responds that undetected justice leads to a great happiness. To understand the connection of justice and its unity, Plato develops the analogy between the city and the soul. Plato counters Thrasymachus by stating, “Injustice causes factions and hatreds and fights with one another, while justice brings a sense of common purpose and friendship” (I. 351e). The ruler’s interest ought to be for his subjects; likewise, a doctor should be interested in earning a wage, not only looking out for themselves. Plato deduces that justice is not for ones friends and hatred of enemies, but unity is for the soul and the