Plato's most precise ethical argument in his Socratic dialogues is that of the double effect of justice; argues that while a "good" may in fact be pleasant, it must also be good in itself to qualify as justice. Justice fills Plato's entire definition of a virtuous life, because only by living rightly can a person find true happiness. Likewise, if a person's supposed happiness is based only on the good and pleasant end of an action, then the outcome is not truly happiness, but simply the unbridled result of what happiness has come to represent. Whether the goal is wealth, goods, food or reputation, that type of goal appears as happiness only to the individual who does not realize the falsity of his ideology and who is controlled by his drives towards physical satisfaction and honorable recognition. In Plato's mind, only those who have a genuine understanding of good itself can begin to understand the principle of virtue and, therefore, the spiritual, intellectual and political elevation in living the right life and living the best life2E In Plato's eyes, through adequate education we achieve not only knowledge, but truth. Following the allegory of the Cave in Book VII of the Republic, Socrates refutes the notion of education as "sight for the blind", and broadens its intention to include the redirection of the soul: "This instrument cannot be diverted from that which is being born without transforming the whole soul until it is capable of studying what is and the brightest thing that is, that is, what we call good” (Republic, 518d). Through education the soul is controlled by rational thought, producing justice. It is interesting to note that Plato's account of the ideal Socratic society also includes those who can never fully reach this state of wisdom, namely the producers, those who focus on appetitive desires and guardians, who are primarily concerned with honor and reputation. The absence of these people's work would drastically compromise city life. However, Plato knows that education is the center of improvement; as long as every human being sees the good, sees the truth and works towards it, the most virtuous lives that any individual can achieve will be realized and the most just society will result. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayIn contrast, the beginning of the Republic includes the cry of those who feed only on appetizing and lively desires and who live only in the benefits of injustice. Thrasymachus seems to present a fair argument in favor of injustice, arguing that it brings satisfaction to the doer in pleasure, wealth, or recognition. Socrates disagrees, however, that the majority of Athenians who live comfortably while committing injustice are, in fact, truly happy. Here Plato begins to touch on the revolutionary difference between presupposed notions of virtue and happiness and what is actually virtuous and good. Socrates forcefully defends this argument in his final attempt to influence Thrasymachus; while believing that everything that has a function must, in turn, have a virtue, he asks Thrasymachus to consider the function of a person's soul, which is to live. The two conclude that justice is in fact the virtue of the soul, and injustice its vice, on which Socrates dictates the moral law: «Therefore the just is happy, and the unjust miserable» (Repubblica, 354a). Through this particular piece of the.