estion is focussing on one part of Cephalus’ definition which is debt. But since truth is the second part of the definition, when Socrates suggested that returning a weapon to an insane person would not be just, Cephalus agreed. The truth part of Cephalus’ definition of justice helped Cephalus and Socrates to agree.
Polemarchus also holds a similar view of justice like his father’s, but with a little alteration. For Polemarchus, justice seems to consist in giving what one is owed. The simple implication of this conception of justice would be that "justice is doing good to friends and harm to enemies."This is, like Cephalus’ conception of justice, is a traditional morality of Greek. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Although, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition of justice advances into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), it is insufficient to Socrates. Its insufficiency is rooted in the circumstances of a risk that may emerge from a possibility of considering bad people as friends, and good people as enemies. The question posed by Socrates on assumption that animosity or friendship is a result of bad and good people. There is a possibility that good people can be enemies and bad people can be friends. People can be engaged with or against others not only based on their respective characteristics but the embedded conflict or alignment of interest of the respective parties.
Eventually, Polemarchus agreed reluctantly with the argument set down by Socrates that “it is never just to harm anyone” (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a common good, for harming people according to Socrates, only makes them “worse with respect to human virtue” (Republic 335 C). Polemarchus also allows for the possibility of common good through his insistence on helping friends. To Polemarchus nothing is more important than his circle of friends, and through their benefit he benefits, what makes them happy pleases him.
During his conversation with Cephalus and Polemarchus, Socrates is not close in attempting to define justice. What makes Socrates different from his friends (Cephalus and Polemarchus) is that he just keeps to methodically question/challenge the established interpretation in the way that enables him to reveal an existing inconsistency, if any. He methodically poses a serious of logical questions so as to break down concept for the purpose of revealing their questioning the established interpretation of justice, attempts to identify inconsistency, seeks clarity with the p and