Very early in Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus argues that "In every situation, a moral person is worse off than an immoral one." (343d) Furthermore, a moral person is a simpleton, while an immoral person exercises good judgment. (348c-d) Socrates faces a challenge that sets the stage for much of the rest of the discussion. In response to this argument, Socrates goes to great lengths to redefine morality in such a way as to evade this claim. However, Socrates' arguments are fundamentally wrong. Despite his efforts, he is never able to convincingly refute the claim that the consummate criminal leads a better life than the moral person. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayCephalus describes morality as consisting of telling the truth and always returning what one has borrowed. (331b) Although this is a narrow definition, it is a good example of an act-based definition of morality. One where your daily actions determine whether or not you are a moral person. With this definition Socrates was unable to satisfy his rhetorical opponents. Recognizing his shortcomings, Socrates attempts to evade the problem he faces. It redefines how we think about morality by introducing the concept of an agent-based definition of morality. However, this argument is also incorrect. Although Plato spared Socrates an embarrassing defeat in deliberating on the advantages and disadvantages of morality in an act of formulation, it was evident even to him that the arguments were insufficient. Gloucon's explanation of the nature and origins of morality is a persuasive argument that Socrates cannot answer. In essence, Gloucon argues that the social contract on which the idea of ​​morality is based evolved from the fact that doing evil is good for the individual while being wronged is bad. An agreement has been reached: for most people the bad of being wronged outweighs the good of doing bad. This led to the general agreement that wrongs would not be tolerated in society. (Lesson of September 11) The wrongdoer who breaks this contract is therefore labeled immoral, yet this individual has gained the benefits of having committed an injustice and avoided the inconveniences of being a victim. He therefore leads a better life than the moral man, who does not benefit from the potential rewards of dishonesty. Socrates enjoys only one substantial success in his argument with Thrasymachus. It demonstrates that a community of immoral individuals will ultimately fail. He uses the example of a gang of thieves to illustrate this point, if everyone is an immoral actor then they will turn on each other. (351c-d) This is a valid point in condemning an unjust lifestyle, but it does not contradict the larger issue at hand. The consummate lawbreaker is just one individual in a community of honest people. Socrates realizes that he must create a more innovative way of thinking about morality if he wants to refute Thrasymachus' argument. If you think that living a rewarding life is strictly in material terms, then morality can only be valued for what it can earn you. Although there are some tangible benefits that can befall a vicar who is considered moral, such as appointment to a prestigious position, Socrates argues that using an image of integrity for this purpose is inherently dishonorable. Although this person practices everyday morality as described by Cephalus, he is not truly moral. Morality, according to Socrates, should be something that is welcomed for its own sake.