While Socrates visited an old friend, Cephalus, Socrates begins asking him and the men around him what justice is. After receiving three definitions from Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, Socrates debunks them and explains his version of a just society through the myth of the metals. The myth states that one day you awake and find that the Gods have infused you with one of three metals: gold, silver, or bronze. These metals determine your status in society. After comparing the three classes, I have decided which one fits me best and formed an opinion on the whether the rule of the wise is just.
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
The end of Socrates life was a display of moral martyrdom and a tribute to his long-standing ethical commitment to do what he thought to be just. His ultimate life position ended in his enactment upon what his intellectual being thought to be the right thing to do, rather than to do the opinion of the most. Socrates ultimately felt that; one should live justly, one should never do wrong, and that one should keep agreements – even if that meant he was to die. Similarly, the laws held that Socrates should not escape from prison for if he would, then that would be equal to destroying not only the laws but the city as well. The platonic dialogue in Crito involving piety brings into question
In book II of The Republic of Plato Glaucon says that he will "restore Thrasymachus' argument" (line 358c) that proves injustice is better than justice. He first talks about how justice came about. Then makes a second point that people practice justice without their own will and he ends with his third point that the unjust man's life is better then the just man's life. Glaucon backs up all of his points with examples of injustices and being just.
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.
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’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 response to Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus, Socrates seeks to show that it is always in an individual’s interest to be just, rather than unjust. Thus, one of the most critical problems regarding the Republic is whether Socrates defends justice successfully or not. Socrates offers three arguments in favor of the just life over the unjust life: first, the just man is wise and good, and the unjust man is ignorant and bad; second, injustice produces internal disharmony which prevents effective actions; and lastly, virtue is excellence at a thing’s function and the just person lives a happier life than the unjust person, since he performs the various functions of the human soul well. Socrates is displeased with the argument because a sufficient explanation of justice is essential before reaching a conclusion as to whether or not the just life is better than the unjust life. He is asked to support justice for itself, not for the status that follows. He propositions to look for justice in the city first and then to continue by analogy to discover justice in the individual. This approach will allow for a distinct judgment on the question of whether the just person is happier than the unjust person. Socrates commences by exploring the roots of political life and constructs a hypothetical just city that gratifies only fundamental human necessities. Socrates argues
In Book I of Plato’s Republic, Socrates believes he has effectively responded to Thrasymachus on the discussion of justice. However, in Book II, his companions believe the conclusion they have reached about justice is inadequate; therefore, Glaucon poses, and challenges Socrates to refute, a stronger argument underlying the notion that a perfect injustice life is the best way of living. Socrates’s reply must prove the goodness found in justice after listening to Glaucon’s argument. In this paper, I will first explain Glaucon’s challenge and Socrates’s reply, and then I will argue Plato’s argument on justice is partly successful in demonstrating a just life is better than an unjust life.
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.
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates argues for the importance of living a just life. However, Glaucon asks why any person favors the just life over an unjust one. Glaucon would like an answer regarding this type of justice, and if it is good only for its results or good in itself. Socrates argues that justice in the individual is the balance between sprit, reason, and desire (scc. 435a). Socrates’ account of justice, displays a life in which a justice provides benefits not only for the individual, but also society. In this case, Socrates account of justice, does not provide a sufficient reason to be just. Socrates parallel of justice and health cannot answer Glaucon’s request fully. Therefore, without sufficiently proving the inherent good of justice his claim falls apart.
This paper argues that Socrates makes a plausible case for justice. Socrates raised two main questions in the first two books of Plato’s Republic, what is justice? And why should we act justly? Thrasymachus and Glaucon both have different and more negative views of justice than Socrates. Throughout books one and two, Socrates, Glaucon and Thrasymachus go back and forth discussing the definition and application of justice in society. He starts his discussions with Glaucon and Thrasymachus by stating simply, “What is justice?”
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.
Socrates proves that justice brings unity to any group of people, because it allows them to trust and rely on one another. The discussion of justice is continued in the beginning of Book II. Glaucon enters the conversation and he divides all things into three categories: 1) Those that are pleasurable for themselves and their results, 2) Those that bring good results, but with difficulty, and 3) Those that bring no results, but are pleasurable. Glacon then asks Socrates which category justice falls within. He replies by placing it in the first category. "I myself put it among the finest goods, as something to be valued by anyone who is going to be blessed with happiness, both because of itself and what it comes from" (Republic, Book II 358a). Glaucon claims that the general view of justice lies in the second category, the mean between two extremes. Glaucon defends his argument by using the example of the "Ring of Gyes," a magical ring that turns its wearer invisible. He continues to argue that if humans were given the opportunity to be unjust without getting caught or without suffering any punishment or loss of good reputation, they would naturally choose a life of injustice, in order to maximize their own interests. Now the issue at hand is to prove whether it is more beneficial to lead a just or unjust life. In an attempt to provide a satisfactory definition of justice, Socrates tries to make an analogy between the
In order Justice to be pure and absolute, there should be no other purposes or motives attached to its virtuous state. So, when Glaucon’s candid argument is conceptualized, it belittles the principle and the role of Justice, for the attack has some conceivable qualities of truth in human beings. It is true that our actions have some kind of consequences either good or bad, depending of the action. Glaucon hence suggests that justice holds no value itself; for example, one does not merely take medicines for the sake of taking it, rather it is taken for the outcome of it, which is healing. Or when one does good deeds the person might feel a sense of satisfaction, but not of the action alone, but of the result it produces, such as the compensation either here on earth or in the afterlife. Moreover, Glaucon proposes that injustice is superior to Justice; a man is just because his weakness forces him to, but if given the power, he will do wrong. To better illustrate and extend his credibility of his argument, he details the myth of the ring of Gyges, a shepherd boy who discovers a ring with invisibility powers, and not surprisingly uses it for evil purposes by murdering the King Candaules and taking his place: Yet another painful charge against Justice. Socrates, in his part, explains the flaws of these vibrant arguments. In order to understand better what is Justice in an individual, he magnifies it by forming an ideal city called Kallipolis, this city is governed by