Just as Polemarchus inherited the argument with Socrates concerning justice from his father, he also inherited a traditional definition of justice from Greek culture. Through their argument, Socrates shows Polemarchus that justice is more than just a balance of the pluses and minuses of debts; instead, Socrates illustrates that justice is a force that does good for all people. Through Polemarchus' changing definitions of justice throughout the argument, the reader's definition of justice also changes. In the end both Polemarchus and the reader come closer to grasping the true nature of justice.
             After taking over the argument, the first clear definition of justice Polemarchus presents is one given by the Greek philosopher, Simonides. It states, "that it is just to give to each what is owed"(331e). This definition is clearly part of the Greek ethos, and is similar to the definition of justice presented by his father, Cephalus. Socrates' counter to this definition is shown when he asks Polemarchus if it is just to give back gold or weapons to a friend who has entrusted him with their care when they are not in sound mind. Polemarchus answers that returning the goods would be the wrong thing to do. Polemarchus goes on to say, "friends owe it to friends to do some good and nothing bad"(332a). It is in this exchange that both Polemarchus and the reader begin to see the good that must be inherent in actions for them to be considered just.
             In his original definition of justice Polemarchus would have done harm to his friends if he had simply returned the goods that he had been entrusted with when their owner was not in sound mind. This is clearly an unjust action. It is easy for the reader and Polemarchus to accept that justice should never harm someone one considers to be a friend. This first argument also paves the way for the realization that for actions to be just they must be backed with good inte...