preview

Adeimantus Vs Greek

Decent Essays

PART A

1 .If a man is just, he willingly does just behavior while nobody is watching for the sake of justice.

2. No man willingly does absolute just behavior while someone isn’t watching for the sake justice. 3. Therefore, no man is truly just.

PART B
The argument formulated within this passage is sound, due to the fact that an individuals’ reasoning for a just act may be questionable. A person may seemingly commit a just act; yet transform that act into one of injustice due to intention. If an individual does a just act for means of reward, then the act was not sincerely done for the integrity of justice, thus containing an underlying presence of misrepresentation. The individual’s intent is misrepresented as “good” simply due to people’s …show more content…

He does this by expressing that individuals would not be sincerely “good” if it were not for the rewards good acts might offer them (Plato, Republic 362d-367d).
Thus, through that lens justice and “goodness” are nothing but a facade that is expressed in anticipation for external rewards, both in this life, and the afterlife. Additionally, Adeimantus also highlights that individuals are never praised for acts of justice solely but rather the reputations, honors and rewards that justice brings, exposing the true goal of justice, while revealing the illusion of artificial goodness (Plato, Republic 362d-367d).
A weakness of Glaucon’s argument is the fact that his statement is a large generalization about man. In order to make such a grand statement one would require grand evidence. Yet, Glaucon only offers an isolated incident that could very well just be a case of chance. Essentially, his evidence is not representative to all of mankind and therefore, is weak in that sense. In order to ensure strong validity, Glaucon could have applied his statement as ‘most”, making his argument increasingly irrefutable and less of an unsupported

Get Access