Socrates

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 begins by arguing that people only act justly because they believe that the action will reap reward. He essentially argues that justice is a necessary evil and without it society would tear itself apart. He argues that justice is a social contract formed because the ‘disadvantages of suffering injury exceed the advantages of inflicting it’(Plato, 2008). Essentially he

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 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

In the Republic, Socrates starts the discussion with the definition of justice. When Thrasymachus angrily interrupts and gives his own definition, he in fact takes an opposite view on justice and argues that injustice is more advantageous and profitable. Glaucon and Adiemantus further develop Thrasymachus’ view with a theory of the nature and the origins of justice and claim that justice is desired only for the sake of rewards. In Amazing Grace, injustice happens every day at every corner of Mott Haven, yet there are still a lot of citizens trying to lead a just life. In the conflict between the authorities and the Mott Haven citizens, the ceaseless injustice in Mott Haven, and some people’s just acts, Thrasymachan view of justice is reflected.

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 problem with Socrates concerns the problem with the role of value and reason. Nietzsche believes that the bulk of philosophers claim that life is a corrupt grievance for mankind. Nietzsche reasoned that these life deniers were decadents of Hellenism, as a symptom of some underlying melancholy. For someone to paint life in such a negative light they must have suffered a great deal through the course of their own life. Furthermore, these no-sayers agreed in various physiological ways and thus adopted the same pessimistic attitudes towards life. Socrates was ugly, alike decadent criminals and by ways of these similarities was decadent as well. Nietzsche also claims ugliness as a physiological symptom of life in its decline supported by studies in phenology.

When citizens stand up against a crook, murderer, or rapist, the punishment lies with the man who rid the world of the injustice; the man that can not let injustice stand is the man that the law says is out of hand. Why should the good be punished?

During Book II of Plato’s work The Republic, reasoning, faith, and the teachings of our elders, are discussed and examined through the lenses of what is just and unjust. Glaucon attempts to revive the argument of Thraymachus from Book I but with the caveat that those who appear to be just and who themselves are really unjust are the ones who can reap the most benefit and are able to use those benefits in turn to do just things to appease the Gods and gain their good faith. During Glaucon’s speech his brother, Adeimantus, interjects with his own additions to the question, suggesting that even our parents tell us what’s just; not for the sake of justice but for the reputation of being just. That the playwrights whom are so beloved promote the excess of unjust when their works contain complaints about the constraints of what it is to be just. They both are asking Socrates to defend justice, not for the reputation, good favor, and possessions that come with one being thought of as just, but for the sake of justice itself, stripped down to its bare nakedness.

Socrates spent his time questioning people about things like virtue, justice, piety and truth. The people Socrates questioned are the people that condemned him to death. Socrates was sentenced to death because people did not like him and they wanted to shut him up for good. There was not any real evidence against Socrates to prove the accusations against him. Socrates was condemned for three major reasons: he told important people exactly what he thought of them, he questioned ideas that had long been the norm, the youth copied his style of questioning for fun, making Athenians think Socrates was teaching the youth to be rebellious. But these reasons were not the charges against him, he was charged with being an atheist and

The classification of goods that Socrates described at the beginning of Book II of the Republic fall into three categories; The first category is about things that bring the satisfaction of the moment with no results and we want to have “not for their consequences, but just for their own sake.” Then, things that are for our own sake and their consequences like “… health and the use of our eyes.” And things that are useful, but we only want them for the benefits they bring. Socrates placed justice in the category, which values both the results and our own sake as values that anyone who gain happiness should have. On the other hand, Glaucon described justice as a compact crated by men who has done wrong and suffered wrong, but that at the end men do right only under compulsion of not suffering.

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.

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?”

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

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