In the beginning of this argument (Plato and Zeyl 39), the question from Socrates to Polus is which is worse, doing what’s unjust or suffering it? Polus responds that suffering is worse and Socrates proceeds to ask which is more shameful doing what is unjust or suffering from it. Polus says doing what is unjust is more shameful which leads Socrates to ask if doing an injustice is more shameful then shouldn’t it be worse. Polus states that is not the case which leads Socrates to believe that Polus believes there is a difference between what is admirable and what is good and also what is shameful and bad. Polus says he does believe there is a difference, Socrates gives an argument (Plato and Zeyl p39 474d-e) basically saying that there is no difference in what is admirable/good and what is bad/shameful. He uses bodies for examples saying that when we see someone as admirable whether they are useful to us or just pleasing to look at, it brings us some pleasure which is good. Polus responds by not necessarily agreeing with Socrates but instead responding in a way to where he is not admitting that he may be wrong.
Socrates then proceeds to say that whenever we have two admirable things and we choose that one is more admirable than the other, it is on the basis that one gives us more pleasure, is more useful or both. He also states that the situation is likewise in the case of when we have to things that are shameful and we choose that one is more shameful on the basis that one is more evil, painful or both (Plato and Zeyl p. 41 475a-b). Polus agrees and then Socrates refers to Polus saying that suffering is more evil but doing an injustice is more shameful. Polus agrees that he said that which leads Socrates to state that if doing an unjust is more shameful than suffering it then it is because it is more painful, evil, or both (Plato and Zeyl p41 475b) as he stated in his argument earlier. He then goes on to ask that is the person doing the unjust hurt more than the people suffering the unjust. Polus says no, and Socrates then goes on to ask does it surpass it in pain or both. Polus says no which leads Socrates to state that the only thing left to surpass it in is evil. Socrates then proceeds to say that since it surpasses it in evil then doing an injustice is more evil than suffering. Polus confirms the statements Socrates is saying without really saying that Socrates is right (Plato and Zeyl p41 475c). Socrates then refers that earlier in the argument Polus agreed with him that doing what is unjust is more shameful than suffering. Polus agrees and Socrates then says it must be more evil as well to which Polus answers the question in a wise guy sort of way. Socrates then calls him out and basically tells him to stop being a smart-aleck and answer yes or no to the question of would he do something that was more evil and shameful over something less evil and shameful. Polus says no and Socrates then goes on to say that he is right in the case of no person would do what’s unjust over suffering what’s unjust because it is more evil. Polus is backed in a corner at this point because he basically agreed with Socrates and it conflicts with the statement he made at the beginning of the argument which was suffering an injustice is more evil than doing an injustice so he simply