Glaucon Injustice

In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.

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 The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.

In this paper, I will present and explain the argument Socrates gives for the conclusion that it is unjust for him to try to escape Athens against the will of the authorities. Socrates is in jail during this part of The Crito. Crito visits Socrates one or two days before his execution with idea of helping him escape, and moving him to a place out of the Athenian authority’s jurisdiction. During this time Socrates brings up an argument. I will be covering this argument and it is that “one must not act unjustly at all” (The Crito, pg. 71). What Socrates means by this is that no one should do anything wrong no matter what. Socrates was sentenced to death for unjust reasons. He then goes onto talk about some principle morals. One of the things he brings up is that no one should do injustice. Even if you are subject to injustice (The Crito, pg. 71). Socrates brings up the point that when someone is subject to ill-treatment it is not right to return it. After bringing up this point, Socrates goes onto stay that “there is no difference, I take it, between ill-treating people and treating them unjustly” (The Crito, pg. 71). So, Socrates creates this premise, and it is as follows “neither doing nor returning injustice is ever right, nor should one who is ill-treated defend himself by retaliation (The Crito, pg. 72).

In the beginning of his speech, Glaucon states that he wants everyone to know about justice and how it came about: "Now listen to what I said I was going to tell first-what justice is and where it came from" (line 358e). He then goes on saying that performing injustices was good and enduring

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

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

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

“Those who practice justice, do so involuntarily” (Plato 78). In “The Ring of Gyges “by Plato, the author presents the view that people are self-interested creatures who, if they could, would prefer to be unjust towards others and not follow a just life. In this story, a man named Glaucon is the one who is presenting this point and other points. He begins his disposition of his points by presenting the idea that people find it desirable to do to harm to others, that is, they find a sense of pleasure in doing so (Plato 78). With this, Glaucon also presents that humans find a greater displeasure in being victimized by others than the pleasure they find in harming others. With this, man came into an involuntary agreement that we today call “Justice”. Glaucon makes it very clear that this agreement is not made willingly and that man follows this agreement because they are weak. He concludes that a person with the power to carry out misdeeds, would be a fool not to do so (Plato 78). Glaucon begins to tell the story of a magic ring that comes out of

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 the Greek society, there was enough wine and spirits for Socrates and his buddies to philosophize on the world around them, beginning the conversation of what is just and not. Ideas transform throughout the conversations of Socrates, Adeimantus, and Glaucon in the Republic forming what justice is in the opinion of Socrates. This opinion, the city in speech, is challenged by Adeimantus and Glaucon but Socrates eloquently responds to their challenges. Socrates’ answers with his city of speech are effective against the challenges of Adeimantus and Glaucon because every human has a soul with decency that is almost impossible to deny.

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

Socrates and Plato's older brother Glaucon are in conversation during a celebration. The main topic has been an attempt to define the meaning of Justice. Along the way this marathon of a conversation, at the request of Glaucon, took on the task of defining “the good”. The illustration that followed has come to be known as the allegory of the sun. The good that is defined or reveled is referred to as the form of the good. The dialog is found in Plato's Republic book VI 507b-509c.

In the Introduction of Plato's Republic, a very important theme is depicted. It is the argument of whether it is beneficial for a person to lead a good and just existence. The greatly argued position that justice does not pay, is argued by three men Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. By incorporating all three men into a collective effort I believe I can give a more flattering depiction of injustice.

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