  First, Socrates might have tried to settle quickly on a widely  accepted account of what justice is and moved immediately to  considering whether that is always in one’s interests. But  Book One rules this strategy out by casting doubt on widely accepted  accounts of justice. Socrates must say what justice is in order to  answer the question put to him, and what he can say is constrained in important ways. Most obviously, he cannot define justice as happiness without begging the question. But he also must give an account of  justice that his interlocutors recognize as justice: if his  account of justice were to require torturing red-headed children  for amusement, he would fail to address the question that Glaucon and Adeimantus are asking.