What Glaucon And The Rest Can Be Separated Into Three Classes

The Republic by Plato examines many aspects of the human condition. In this piece of writing Plato reveals the sentiments of Socrates as they define how humans function and interact with one another. He even more closely Socrates looks at morality and the values individuals hold most important. One value looked at by Socrates and his colleagues is the principle of justice. Multiple definitions of justice are given and Socrates analyzes the merit of each. As the group defines justice they show how self-interest shapes the progression of their arguments and contributes to the definition of justice.

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

Glaucon states that all goods can be divided into three classes: things that we desire for their consequences; goods that we desire for their own sake and things we desire both for their own sake and for their beneficial consequences. Socrates believes that justice is in the latter group. Glaucon asks Socrates to prove justice is in the last group and begins defending unjust actions in the strongest way possible (Plato, 2008).

To begin with, a discourse about the nature of justice arises between Glaucon and Socrates. As expressed in book 2 of the Republic, Glaucon begins a step by step process of reasoning, first attempting to identify justice as either an intrinsic or extrinsic good, or possibly both. To expand, Glaucon first describes intrinsic goods as welcoming for their own sake, regardless of outcome, causing pleasure and delight in the heat of the moment (Pg. 497). Inversely, Glaucon then describes extrinsic goods as desirable for their own results, as, for example, gymnastics and care of the sick, and in the case of justice, the reputation of being just, not actually being just (Pg 498). Consequently, Socrates responds by placing justice in the highest class of goods, believing that one pursues justice for its intrinsic rewards, since it's the ethical thing to do, while also seeking it for the extrinsic rewards, such as a promotion for ones just behavior.

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?”

In real life there are emotions and passion to complicate things, as well as the will of humans who will inevitably want more than their lot in life. To assume that a society would function so peacefully and in such a completely just environment is all well and good in theory, but to neglect to address the role of justice versus injustice in society is a bit of an oversight on Socrates' part. It leaves an opening for Glaucon to challenge him, knowing that there is no way to define or locate proper and true justice, as explain via the city of

The two concepts of Morality and Immorality can be discussed in many different ways, although Glaucon, brother to Plato and Adeimantus, and apprentice to Socrates takes a unique approach to showing the implications of both notions. Glaucon does this through an abundance of ways, starting with putting justice in one of the three categories of goods, and then moving on to his three-step argument that challenges Socrates by evaluating the benefits of being an immoral person versus one holding onto their morality. Glaucon’s argument dives into three separate segments, the nature or origin of morality, the standpoint that people only act just or morally out of either fear or of necessity, lastly, that an immoral person’s life is better than a moral

According to Socrates one of the most important things that identify with human being is their desire. Socrates argues that desire that can change people minds quickly and very abnormally. The three-part division of the soul is crucial to Plato’s overall project of offering the same sort of explication of justice whether applied to societies or individuals.

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.

Socrates, which recognizes that justice is an attribute of the good person, still sees Cephalus’ view as only possible with sufficient material wealth. Cephalus is not a reflective person, it is obviously suggested when he states that a person can satisfy the requirements of a just and good life by possessing the right disposition and equipped with adequate wealth. But that is all that his life experiences have shown him and unlike Socrates, Cephalus is not a man for whom unexamined life is not worth living. Therefore Socrates’ response to Cephalus is not a direct confrontation. Socrates comments that the value of talking to old men is that they may teach us something about the life they have traversed. They may tell us the benefits of old age, however, Plato exploits Cephalus’ account of old age to suggest that old age is not a source of wisdom. The wisdom and goodness which enables Cephalus to see his age as a beneficial state need not come with old age. To most men, as Cephalus recognizes, old age is a source of misery and resentment. Only those who have order and peace with themselves can “accept old age with equanimity.”

Socrates describes virtue of the body (through gymnastics and medicine) as well as of the soul (through temperance and justice). Interestingly, Socrates's response here smacks of rhetoric and oration more than of dialogue, and his tone takes on a passion and urgency unusual even for him. This intense passion suggests the vital significance for him (and thus for Plato) of the topics in focus. The mythology of death Socrates relates at the dialogue's conclusion illustrates the importance of virtue both in this world and beyond.

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 concludes Book IV by asserting that Socrates’s argument reveals justness to be more profitable to the individual than unjustness. By being a just individual, one has a healthy soul, and by being an unjust individual, one has an unhealthy soul. If health is something an individual desires to have, then it only makes sense that being just is most profitable. Before it is possible to assess Socrates’ argument, it must first be explained how he views the human soul and it’s components. Socrates defines three parts to the human soul: rational, spirited and appetitive.

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

The position Thrasymachus takes on the definition of justice, as well as its importance in society, is one far differing from the opinions of the other interlocutors in the first book of Plato’s Republic. Embracing his role as a Sophist in Athenian society, Thrasymachus sets out to aggressively dispute Socrates’ opinion that justice is a beneficial and valuable aspect of life and the ideal society. Throughout the course of the dialogue, Thrasymachus formulates three major assertions regarding justice. These claims include his opinion that “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,” “it is just to obey the rulers,” and “justice is really the good of another […] and harmful to the one who obeys and serves.” Socrates