Plato's most precise ethical argument in his Socratic dialogues is that of the double effect of justice; he argues that although a “good” may indeed be pleasant, it must also be good in itself to qualify as justice. Justice fulfills the entire Platonic definition of virtuous living, because only by living justly can a person find true happiness. Likewise, if a person's supposed happiness is based solely on the good and pleasant ending of an action, then the result is not really happiness, but simply the free result of what happiness has come to represent . Whether the end is wealth, goods, food or reputation, this kind of end only appears as happiness to the individual who does not realize the falsity of his ideology and who is controlled by his impulses of physical satisfaction and honorable recognition. In Plato's mind, only one who has a true understanding of the good itself can begin to understand the principle of virtue, and thus the spiritual, intellectual, and political elevation that a righteous and better life offers2E In the eyes of Plato, through With a good education, one achieves not only knowledge, but the truth. Following the allegory of the Cave from Book VII of the Republic, Socrates refutes the notion of education as "sight for the blind" and extends his intention to the reorientation of the soul: "This instrument cannot be diverted from what is be born without transforming the whole soul until it is capable of studying what is and the most brilliant thing there is, namely that which we call good” (Republic, 518d). What inevitably follows is Plato's call for properly focused desires. Through education, everyone's soul is controlled by rational thought, producing justice. Interestingly, Plato's account of the ideal Socratic society also includes those who can never fully achieve this state of wisdom, namely the producers, those who focus on appetitive desires, and the guardians, who care mainly of honor and reputation. The absence of these people from work would considerably slow down urban life. However, Plato knows that education is the center of progress; as long as every human being sees the good, sees the truth, and works to achieve it, the most virtuous lives accessible to each individual will be achieved and the most just society will result. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an original essayIn contrast, the early Republic includes the cry of those who feast only on appetitive and fiery desires, and who live only profits from injustice. Thrasymachus seems to present a valid argument in favor of injustice, believing that it brings the doer satisfaction in terms of pleasure, wealth or recognition. Socrates, however, disagrees that the majority of Athenians living comfortably in injustice are actually truly happy. Here Plato begins to address the revolutionary difference between presupposed notions of virtue and happiness and what is actually virtuous and good. Socrates defends this argument very vigorously 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. Both conclude that justice is indeed the virtue of the soul, and injustice its vice, on which Socrates lays down the moral law: “Therefore the just is happy, and the unjust is unhappy”..