The Ring Of Gyges Analysis

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 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

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

A man facing an unjust execution is presented with another option: escape from prison and flee to another providence. Most men would eagerly take this chance to prolong their lives and continue their journey on earth. Most men would do anything to get revenge for the wrong that has been done to them. However, most men are not like Socrates. Socrates did not plead his case by eliciting pity from the jury for an old man and his poor family. He did not beg for a different sentence that would allow him to live. Instead, he let the jury come to its own conclusion while acting with virtue and integrity. He held fast to his principles by remaining in prison to face his execution because that is how a good and just person would behave. Socrates’ decision not to escape in Crito is consistent with his principle that the good and just person never does harm to a large extent because accepting his verdict allows him to reinforce the sanctity of law and to set a prime example for his peers.

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

Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense against charges of corrupting the youth and heresy, reveal the ancient teacher’s view of justice as fairness and support of rule of law. In the Apology, Socrates faces a moral dilemma: to either accept his punishment for crimes he did not commit or to accept the assistance of his friends and escape death by the hand of the state. His choice to accept death in order to maintain rule of law reveals his belief of justice. He beliefs his punishment to be just not because he committed the crimes but because his sentence came through a legal process to which he consented. By sparing his life, he would weaken the justice system of Athens which he values above his own existence. This difference between the two men’s beliefs regarding justice draws the sharpest contrast in their views of effective leadership and government.

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.

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

This story raises multiple queries about the idea and constitution of justice and its connection the character of Glaucon uses this fable to argue that justice is a kind of socially constructed contract which keeps people from harming one another. Glaucon’s thought experiment is supposed to demonstrate the fact that people really only value justice because doing so benefits their perception in the public’s image. In other words, it would be more beneficial for someone in Gyges’s position to act as they like because people only value justice or morality when their actions can be scrutinised, Light from the death note acknowledges this face and states “Humans will all ways try to maintain appearances when there in public that’s just how we are…” however, when they are given anonymity and the risk of damaging ones reputation is gone so is all their sense of justice “…But this is how they really feel most are too afraid to support me as they a worried about what others will think; Many would rather deny my existence, but on the internet where you can remain anonymous support for KIRA is growing”. Glaucon states it doesn’t matter whether or not you are just or unjust before putting on the ring the power of temptation will inevitably lead you to corruption. When

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