Good About Living A Just Life In Plato's Republic

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

Many argue if politicians, and individuals acting in the public sphere are just individuals. In Socrates’ trial, he declares that living a public or political life is incompatible with living a just life. I agree with this point, for being just can be is not only seen as doing what is right, but also doing what one believes is right in an honest matter. Individuals in public life may choose to not speak the truth and play on words to flatter people to be favourable of them. When political figures flatter and have this undisputed favour, many do not act justly, within just interest, or within their own interest, but merely in the interest of what will gain them power by making compromises between the just and unjust.

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.

If justice is considered to be an instrumental good, this would mean that justice is only practiced for the consequences it brings. The rewards of this virtue could provide you with enhanced reputation, political or social status, and praises. In that sense, justice is rendered meaningless if not recognized by others. If no one knows you’re being just, no beneficial consequences can come from it through other people. Therefore Glaucon thinks that you might as well practice injustice while still maintaining a false reputation for justice (Babcock). By simply maintaining the false persona of a just person, you could reap the rewards of the virtue without having to practice it. Meanwhile, you could practice injustice, which is much more beneficial than solely being just and reap the rewards of both. In addition to this, Adeimantus further supports Glaucon’s arguments by pointing out that justice is only ever praised by people for the good consequences it brings us, while injustice is only ever censored by people due to the bad

He begins with a division of goods into three classes, placing justice in his third category; things we do not choose for their own sake but only for their consequences. Under this category also comes physical training, medical treatment and wage earning and the like, leading to the argument that justice, being difficult to obtain, is only prized for its worthwhile consequences. This is purely hypothetical, for Glaucon is really asking Socrates to defend his, (alongside Socrates himself, and Adeimatus’) view that justice is to be valued for its own sake – subsiding in the second category of goods Glaucon presents of things desirable both in themselves and for the sake of their consequences.

The next example of Glaucon's transformation is during Book 9, 576e, when he states that "there is no city more wretched than one ruled by a tyrant…". Socrates is discussing how the four types of inferior souls bring about the ruin of the city. He then poses to Glaucon the question of whether a city ruled by a tyrant or philosopher-king is happier, in which he compels Glaucon to examine the whole of the city, and not just one or a few people who are a part of it, (or, the whole of the soul and not just one part over the exclusion of others). Glaucon's response demonstrates that he now sees that the one who possesses power and riches is, in reality, is unhappy than the one who possesses knowledge and truth of self and the forms. He is answering his own question that he introduced in Book 2, and his answer is that the most just man, who is the philosopher-king in this dialogue, is happiest. The unjust man, being the tyrant, is unhappiest. This is expanded when Glaucon ranks the five actors in accordance to their contentment as he

He claims that justice is harmony between reason, appetite, and spirit, and that justice is better than injustice. Those arguments are his main reasons for his placement of justice in the highest class, even though his arguments have many flaws. One of his interlocutors, Glaucon, makes a stronger argument proving that justice belongs to the lowest class. The lowest class means that justice is only desired for its consequences. Glaucon’s example of the ring of Gyges gives a plausible scenario that shows that injustice can be more beneficial than injustice.

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

“I went down yesterday to the Piraeus with Glaucon…” this is the part of the first sentence from the Republic which was written as in the dialogue form by ancient Greek philosopher Plato. Through the book Plato tried to define the meaning of the justice. As Plato said in his dialogue with Adeimantus, it is better that defining the justice in the State in which we could see justice in the larger quantity: first, it is appearing in the State, and the individual comes second.

He challenges Socrates to prove that people are just with no other factors in mind, saying "... no one is willingly just but only when compelled to be so (360c). " Glaucon challenges Socrates in three major ways: first, justice is a compromise, second, no one values justice for its own sake, and finally, it is only valuable as a means. Glaucon uses an analogy of the Ring of Gyges, a ring that can turn someone invisible at will.

In Glaucon’s response to the Immoralists Challenge, i do find it interesting about his view on justice and how there were consequences to being a just person. How he viewed that there is always supposed to be some sort of gain through doing the right thing from doing a type of good for our own sake to such goods. I truly believe that there are people in the world with a good sense of integrity. That they do good things when nobody's looking because they are truly that type of being. However, i do also believe that there are such people in the world that care about their reputation or care about some sort of gain from doing justice. I think it all leads back to how the individual is raised and the environment that they are put in. being taught

Glaucon and Adeimantus debate with Socrates over the capabilities of a just and unjust lifestyle. Glaucon raises the issue of a just man and an unjust man being given the opportunities to live how they want by introducing the story of the Ring of Gyges. The question that is

Glaucon’s first argument is that doing injustice and not being punished for it is much more pleasurable than suffering injustice at the hands of unjust rulers and practicing justice. Glaucon’s brother, Adeimantus, backs up his brother’s speech by stating that an unjust man with a deceivably just reputation(which is almost always the trait of the perfectly unjust man) is also better than the just man. But Socrates counters these two strong speeches by proclaiming that, in an average city, justice is needed for the Senate to build the city, for citizens to trade and barter with foreigners, and for training and educating soldiers for battle. Socrates also states that justice comes from God and those who follow his example become just. Although these two arguments are striking contrasted content-wise, there is a connection between them.

In Book II of Plato’s Republic, Glaucon claims there are three types of good things and justice is best understood when categorized among them. First, there are things that are good in themselves, with no thought granted to their consequences. For example, singing in the shower. Second, there are things are good in themselves, as well as for their consequences. For example, professional musicians: they sing because they enjoy the action as well as the monetary compensation. Lastly, Glaucon describes items not good in themselves, but only as a result of their consequences. For example, a student may study engineering, not because they enjoy it, but because they’re seeking the positive consequences of being an engineer, namely, a high salary.