Throughout Plato's Republic, the subject of platonic justice and its goodness to its self arise and are discussed amongst Plato and his peers. At the beginning of The Republic, Plato asks the fundamental question of "what is justice?" Looking to define the ideal state of justice, Plato reasons that he must first define justice in theory before he can use justice practically. Platonic Justice is defined as being a harmony between the tripartite soul in which reasons guide the spirit and appetite. Justice is said to be good in itself and good in its practical ends. Justice is not the interest of the stronger, but more the interest of the weaker. An unjust life, which is dominated by the spirit, leads one to an addiction for material goods or possessions. A platonically just life leads to harmony, balance, and virtue. A just life allows satisfaction, where as an unjust life does not. Whether or not platonic justice is good for its own sake is to be determined. After Plato debates and dismisses that justice is the interest of the stronger and that the unjust life has an advantage to the just life, Plato, lacking a firm answer on justice seems to say that justice is a balance of the soul. As Plato is debating this question, Thrasymachus joins in and presents the first possible definition of justice, as the interest of the stronger. Socrates enters the conversation and attempts to define justice. Socrates says that subjects obey their rulers and these rulers are not perfect, sometimes making mistakes. If justice is the interest of the stronger and the stronger symbolizes the rulers, then when rulers are right, they are making rules agreeable to their own interests. When rulers rule wrongly, they make rules contrary to their interests. Having argued back and forth with them, Plato then dismisses that justice is the interest of the stronger. Rulers who rule in their own interest breed unhappy su
             ...