Very early in Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus argues that "in all situations, a moral person is in a worse situation than an immoral person." (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 redefines morality at length in a way that evades this claim. However, Socrates' arguments are fundamentally flawed. Try as he might, he is never able to convincingly refute the claim that the accomplished evildoer lives a better life than the corporate person. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Cephalus describes morality as 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 in which your daily actions determine whether or not you are a legal person. By this definition, Socrates was incapable of satisfying his rhetorical opponents. Aware of his faults, Socrates tries to avoid the problem he faces. It redefines the way we think about morality by introducing the concept of an agent-based definition of morality. Yet this argument is also flawed. Although Plato spared Socrates an embarrassing defeat in deliberating the pros and cons of morality in developing an act, it was obvious even to him that the assertions were insufficient. Gloucon's explanation of the nature and origins of morality is a compelling argument that Socrates cannot answer. Essentially, Gloucon argues that the social contract on which the idea of ​​morality is based evolved from the fact that doing wrong is good for the individual while suffering wrong is bad. An agreement was reached: for most people, the bad of being wronged outweighs the good of having done wrong. This led to a general agreement that wrongs would not be tolerated in society. (September 11 Lecture) The wrongdoer who breaks this contract is therefore characterized as immoral, but this individual has obtained the advantages of committing an injustice and has avoided the setbacks 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 has only one substantial success in his dispute with Thrasymachus. It proves 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, they will turn on each other. (351c-d) This is a valid point in condemning an unjust way of life, but it does not contradict the larger question at hand. The accomplished criminal 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 is to refute Thrasymachus' argument. If living a meaningful life is thought of strictly in material terms, then morality can only be valued for what it can get you. Although a pastor seen as moral may enjoy certain tangible benefits, 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 or she is not truly moral. Morality, according to Socrates, should be something.