Justice In Plato

Book II of The Republic by Plato showcases the two very different views of Socrates and Glaucon in regards to the account of nature and origin of justice. Socrates and Glaucon discuss the theory presented by Glaucon that states that injustice is something that is intrinsically desired by all humans. Glaucon presents this argument to Socrates in order to understand and defend justice for its own sake. Glaucon seeks reassurance from Socrates that justice is not just only good for the positive consequences that it produces, so he asks Socrates to explain that justice is desirable for its own sake and, additionally, the consequences that it provides. In the defense of justice, Socrates begins to explain that justice is a virtue that needs to be found in the individual as well as the state. Socrates believes that true happiness can only exist with a true set of virtues that are justice and respectable morals. Socrates’ assumption is on the fact that a man committing unjust actions will never be able to have complete satisfaction with his life if he has achieved everything through unjust actions because he cannot fully claim his accomplishments. Through examination of the assumptions of both arguments presented, Glaucon’s opinion on justice is superior to the views of Socrates. Glaucon’s presumptuous claim that humans are innately greedy is able to provide an understanding that justice is only a social contract for the weaker people of society by handicapping the strength of the

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.

Why do we even bother with justice? To an average person, I’d argue that the value of justice could rival or is even undermined by the value of a consistent Wi-Fi signal. This is no jab at modern consumerism, but instead an analogy to identify how commonly vague the definition of justice is to a common individual. However, to Plato and his Republic, the value of Justice both rivals and harmonies with all that’s important, and all that is “good”. Justice, according to Plato, represents both intrinsic and extrinsic good. In other words, the state of Justice is preferable just for the sake of Justice and for the harmony it can bring to the Republic. To arrive at this defining distinction, Socrates participates in

In Book II of Plato’s Republic, Glaucon and Adeimantus present a challenge to Socrates’ view of justice. Previously, in Book I of the Republic, Socrates presents several counterarguments to Thrasymachus’ belief that it is to your own advantage to practice injustice rather than to follow laws, if you can get away with it (Babcock). Glaucon and Adeimantus sought to present a stronger defense to Thrasymachus’ view. The main viewpoint they try to establish is that it is to our advantage to practice injustice rather than justice and that the good life is the life of injustice (Babcock). Several arguments are used to reinforce the central view through use of the Ring of Gyges story, an account of the origin of justice, a classification of

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.

Everyday examples of defiance are right in front of us, on the news, or being done by ourselves. Many studies have been done to explain why these urges make us do the things we do, but still there is no answer, except greed. Unlike Abigail some may break the law to do good, but still many are like Abigail and will do bad and only have a benefit for themselves. “Lying often starts with wrong-doing. For whatever reason, we do something that others disapprove of. When they are in a position of greater power, they might punish us. Even if not, their disapproval may be punishment enough.”(Straker) When Abigail was accused in the beginning of the story she lied to save her name and not be in shame from those in the town and her uncle. When we do something bad we lie to keep our names clean and to not feel shameful. “In consequence, we deny the crime, pointing the finger at others, denying the action or justifying the act with some fabricated excuse.”(Straker). This study gives a brief explanation as to why Abigail blamed Tituba, and why people who are convicted often rely on blaming their faults on others.“During a study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, women were presented with a photograph of their potential dream man. Half of the women were told their Mr. Right

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 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.

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

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

Explain and evaluate the reasons given by Plato in the Republic, to support the contention that justice is superior to, or more beneficial than, injustice?

In Plato’s Republic he defines justice as “doing one’s own work and not meddling with what is not one’s own” (Plato 139, 433b). This definition begs the question what is one’s own work? Plato states that one’s own work is the work that one’s nature is best suited for, as each person is born with a different nature (Plato 101, 370b). To come to this definition Plato compares justice within the human soul to justice within a city. If Plato can find justice within the city and prove that the individual is only a smaller version of the city then he will have found the form of justice, the aspect by which we recognize justice in anything else.

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

Plato’s interpretation of justice as seen in ‘The Republic’ is a vastly different one when compared to what we and even the philosophers of his own time are accustomed to. Plato would say justice is the act of carrying out one’s duties as he is fitted with. Moreover, if one’s duties require one to lie or commit something else that is not traditionally viewed along with justice; that too is considered just by Plato’s accounts in ‘The Republic.’ I believe Plato’s account of justice, and his likely defense against objections are both clear and logical, thus I will endeavor to argue his views as best as I can.

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