In this discussion Glaucon explains to Socrates why giving the Gyges's ring to a just person will cause them to strive for personal gain with the cost of who they interact with. He also questions if the just person would take in account for the impact of there actions on others? Another interesting thing that was stated was if a just person had the ring why wouldn't they give up the quest of just, and take advantage of the injustice. Like that of the man who used the ring to become invisible and have intercourse with the kings wife and then kill the present king to become king. Then Adiemantus chimes in or tries to finish the discussion by pointing out that having good reputation is a personal benefit because it is gathered by someone who
Socrates trusts he has sufficiently reacted to Thrasymachus and is through with the talk of equity, yet the others are not happy with the conclusion they have come to. Glaucon, one of Socrates ' young partners, clarifies what they might want him to do. Glaucon states that all products can be separated into three classes: things that we crave just for their outcomes, for example, physical preparing and medicinal treatment; things that we fancy just for their own purpose, for example, euphoria; and, the most elevated class, things we fancy both for their own particular purpose and for what we get from them, for example, information, sight, and wellbeing. What Glaucon and the rest might want Socrates to demonstrate is that equity is
Following this separation of goods, Socrates adopts Glaucon’s view and adds to it a new dynamic by ranking the groups, and placing justice where
Glaucon’s argument in book II of Republic concerns the issue of justice. From the outset Glaucon explains that justice is a social contract that emerges - between people who are roughly equal in power - for the reason being that the pain of experiencing unjust actions is greater than the benefits accrued from inflicting it. (Plato, 2008) In this essay I will first outline his argument and explain how the parable of the Ring of Gyges attempts to support his theory. I will then argue that I do not find his argument plausible and it falls just short of persuading the reader.
In Plato's Republic, Glaucon is introduced to the reader as a man who loves honor, sex, and luxury. As The Republic progresses through books and Socrates' arguments of how and why these flaws make the soul unhappy began to piece together, Glaucon relates some of these cases to his own life, and begins to see how Socrates' line of reasoning makes more sense than his own. Once Glaucon comes to this realization, he embarks on a path of change on his outlook of what happiness is, and this change is evidenced by the way he responds during he and Socrates' discourse.
If anyone were capable of having complete protection and exclusion from the law or any other type of consequence, they would abuse their power, even if they perceived themselves to be the most just, reasonable, or trustworthy. Going back to the Socratic dialogue, The Euthyphro, it explains the conflict of moral relativism, concluding that this concept makes it unclear to ultimately agree to what distinguishes a person as being “good” anyway. The reason it is likely that a “just” person could potentially fall into the temptation of abusing their power is due to the certainty that what they may consider a reasonable act to commit, even under the influence of the Ring of Gyges, might oppose what another person may ruminate. In fact, it is hard to even name a historic individual as an example of a person who has had access to this type of power and has not used it for anything selfishly in any way.
Glaucon’s second argument shows that if people could act immorally and get away with it, they would, by nature. Glaucon uses the story of “The Ring of Gyges” to clearly prove his point that people, by nature are always trying to better their
In the Republic, Socrates takes up the question of whether a just person will be better off than an unjust person. He refutes Thrasymachus’ claim that an unjust person is wise and good and argues that no one in any rule, who, in so far as he is wise and good tries to outdo someone like himself in the same domain. Only an ignorant and bad man will always want to outperform everyone. I shall present Socrates’ argument about justice, as well as, I shall object the argument with the point that in the craft of business, companies should compete to get better overtime. After that, I will challenge the objection, in order to show that businesses are able to improve without competition.
However when they are actually put in the situation, because of their human nature they would take advantage of such abnormalities, regardless of it being just or not. In the selection “Plato’s Republic” justice versus injustice is illustrated in “Gyges ring.” Gyges steals a ring that gives him the power to disappear and reappear again.
In Book II of Plato’s Republic, Glaucon claims there are three types of good things and justice is best understood when categorized among them. First, there are things that are good in themselves, with no thought granted to their consequences. For example, singing in the shower. Second, there are things are good in themselves, as well as for their consequences. For example, professional musicians: they sing because they enjoy the action as well as the monetary compensation. Lastly, Glaucon describes items not good in themselves, but only as a result of their consequences. For example, a student may study engineering, not because they enjoy it, but because they’re seeking the positive consequences of being an engineer, namely, a high salary.
At first, Socrates is hesitant to respond to the challenge of Glaucon. After some time, Socrates reciprocates to Glaucon’s argument. He states that there are two kinds of justice: political justice, and
Benefits of justice given by Glaucon and Adeimantus are based on the idea that they are desired based on their consequences. In this sense, many people would place justice as a necessary evil, which allows individuals to avoid a greater evil that would exists without justice. Justice is something that comes from the vulnerability to humans, they are all affected by the injustices of others. As such, people continue to act just because without it, there would be more collective suffering. Rather than being practiced for the sake of being just, it is something produced similar to a social contract that comes out of fear and weakness. Adeimantus adds another benefit of justice in regards to what one can gain which will benefit them in the future. He claims that no one praises justice for being justice, but rather for the rewards that will come from it in current day and in the afterlife. In doing so, they can question Socrates about the benefits of justice, when it does not produce external rewards.
In Plato's Republic, Glaucon claims that no one is just because justice is desirable but because they are afraid of the possible consequences they may face from acting unjustly. Glaucons claim means that people don’t act justly because they genuinely want to but because they do not want to deal with the consequences associated with acting unjustly. The significance of this claim is that Glaucon is trying to get Socrates to explain what justice is in a person and what it is as a whole. Glaucon makes the example of giving a just and an unjust person the freedom to do whatever they wish and then following them both to see where their appetites lead. Glaucon concluded this example by saying that you would catch the just person red handed acting
In this paper, I am going to argue that living a just life is more worthwhile than living an unjust life. I will do this with evidence provided from the text. The argument in question is why (given the advantages of living an unjust life) would anyone want to live a just life. This very question was a major debate that carried on during most of the text of The Republic of Plato. Throughout the text we see Socrates, Thrasymachus, Adeimantus and Glaucon take on this challenge. They thoroughly go through what they feel is just, and unjust. They also outline the benefits of living both types of ways. They take the various ideals discussed and pick them apart in every which way possible. There is no point of view that is brushed under the rug. After seeing the stance of several of the characters in this book, I see myself siding with Socrates on many levels. This challenge is taken on heavily and incorporated in many of the other concepts discussed within Socrates’ circle.
Glaucon sees the issue from the perspective of personal gain or loss, while Plato sees it from outside that realm in the sphere of absolute truths. Clearly, an absolute truth is more viable and defensible than a personal interest. Justice is a higher order than personal advantage and as is associated with happiness whether one receives a reward for justice or not. The argument Glaucon raises against the absolutism of justice is exemplified in his story of the man who discovers a gold ring that allows him to become invisible. Glaucon proposes these two representative men as extreme examples of the two sides of the argument and suggests that their positions be examined after their death to see which was happier, based on the premise that the unjust man meted out injustice at will without ever suffering it himself, while the just man acted only justly but was treated unjustly himself. Glaucon takes this example to the extreme, with the just man being: “whipped...racked...bound; he'll have both his eyes burned out; and at the end, when he has undergone every sort of evil, he'll be crucified and know that one shouldn't wish to be, but to seem to be, just” (39). Glaucon sets these two men at extremes to prove his point-that happiness does not come from being
Glaucon attempted to prove that injustice is preferable to justice. At first, Glacon agreed with Socrates that justice is a good thing, but implored on the nature of its goodness? He listed three types of “good”; that which is good for its own sake (such as playing games), that which is good is good in itself and has useful consequences (such as reading), and that which is painful but has good consequences (such as surgery). Socrates replied that justice "belongs in the fairest class, that which a man who is to be happy must love both for its own sake and for the results." (45d) Glaucon then reaffirmed Thrasymachus’s position that unjust people lead a better life than just people. He started that being just is