Key Arguments

• If a sane friend deposits arms and later demands them back while insane, returning them would be harmful and unjust, though it is literally repaying a debt.
• Similarly, truth-telling to someone not in their right mind can be wrong; therefore, truth-telling and debt-repayment are not sufficient conditions of justice.

Source Quotes

Now to this peace of mind the possession of wealth greatly contributes; and therefore I say, that, setting one thing against another, of the many advantages which wealth has to give, to a man of sense this is in my opinion the greatest. Well said, Cephalus, I replied; but as concerning justice, what is it?—to speak the truth and to pay your debts—no more than this? And even to this are there not exceptions?

And even to this are there not exceptions? Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so, any more than they would say that I ought always to speak the truth to one who is in his condition.

Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so, any more than they would say that I ought always to speak the truth to one who is in his condition. You are quite right, he replied.

Key Concepts

• what is it?—to speak the truth and to pay your debts—no more than this?
• Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him?
• any more than they would say that I ought always to speak the truth to one who is in his condition.

Context

Socratic elenchus refuting Cephalus’ conventional definition; Cephalus exits and Polemarchus inherits the argument.

Perspectives

Plato

Endorses the refutation as the first step of the dialogue’s ascent: it clears away conventional, transactional accounts of justice to make room for the later systematic theory (city–soul, Forms).

Socrates

Affirms through aporetic method: uses a clear counterexample to expose a necessary refinement in the concept, preparing for deeper analysis.