Plato’s argument for a just life over an unjust life is lengthy and complex. Going into too much detail on each of his four arguments would result in a book, and there is a limit on the length of this paper. Instead, each argument will be briefly summarized and categorized. The different versions of the unjust soul will be discussed, and then the just soul/life will be shown to be superior. First is the democratic man. Plato asserts that he is low ranking, because he views all pleasures and desires as equal, and is indiscriminant in his desires. This means he will act differently on different occasions. Plato further asserts that the democratic man holds no principles, but rather acts on momentary desires, with no control or purpose in his actions. Next, slightly above the democratic man are the timocrat and the oligarch. These two men work lead their lives working towards prestige and possessions, respectively. Plato states that the timocrat is superior to the oligarch, most likely because the timocrat’s desires are closer to reason more than they are to appetite, and Plato sees reason as more valuable than appetite. Then, there is the aristocrat, who leads the just life. He is superior to the others because his life is not controlled by any one particular desire. Instead, he satisfies all desires, so no single part of the soul dominates the individual. Therefore, he achieves the greatest possible individual. Finally, Plato discusses what would happen if a man blindly follows his strongest urge, he would be far from calling himself great. Plato says, at best, that this man is trapped in a life of tyranny created by his own mind, and literally every single one of his decisions would be controlled by what he called a master passion. This is the condition Plato places at the absolute bottom. In summary, Since the aristocrat keeps checks and balances on all three parts of the soul while enjoying the pleasures that comes from each one