Glaucon Vs 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 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).

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 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.

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

Socrates trusts he has sufficiently reacted to Thrasymachus and is through with the talk of equity, yet the others are not happy with the conclusion they have come to. Glaucon, one of Socrates ' young partners, clarifies what they might want him to do. Glaucon states that all products can be separated into three classes: things that we crave just for their outcomes, for example, physical preparing and medicinal treatment; things that we fancy just for their own purpose, for example, euphoria; and, the most elevated class, things we fancy both for their own particular purpose and for what we get from them, for example, information, sight, and wellbeing. What Glaucon and the rest might want Socrates to demonstrate is that equity is

In the end of Plato’s Republic Book I, Socrates and Thrasymachus who had just finished a set of vigorous arguments on what the definition for justice is and whether the just or the unjust life is the best life to live, come to a conclusion. Regarding the true definition of justice, at the end of Book I, Socrates mentions that their discussion have not led them to the true definition of justice (Republic 354b). On the other hand, their discussion on which life is more profitable does come to a conclusion, “So the just man is happy and the unjust man is miserable…but being miserable is not profitable, whereas being happy is” (Rep. 354a) Socrates says, indicating the just life tends to be more profitable than the unjust life. Following their

In Plato's Republic, Glaucon claims that no one is just because justice is desirable but because they are afraid of the possible consequences they may face from acting unjustly. Glaucons claim means that people don’t act justly because they genuinely want to but because they do not want to deal with the consequences associated with acting unjustly. The significance of this claim is that Glaucon is trying to get Socrates to explain what justice is in a person and what it is as a whole. Glaucon makes the example of giving a just and an unjust person the freedom to do whatever they wish and then following them both to see where their appetites lead. Glaucon concluded this example by saying that you would catch the just person red handed acting

1. Happiness in terms of justice- Glaucon tells Socrates and the rest of the group about the three different outcomes of why people are good. He claims that people are good for their own sake, to get something positive out of it, or a combination of both. Socrates claims that justice falls into the last category and that there are some good people in the world who do good things for the right reasons. In most of this book it seems to be a reoccurring idea that being a completely just person is not possible and that the right way to live life is actually to be unjust.

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.

The common fertilization of justice in plato’s day was a social one, which intricate the following of laws and agreement. Glaucon uses the ring of Gyges to show that people value justice not as a good but because that are too weak to do injustice with indemnity. This view of justice might lead one to Glaucon’s argument. But I will disagree that this view is wrong for two reasons. First, I think that there are some things wrong with Glaucon’s description of justice, which would not undeviating one to as painful of a conclusion as Glaucon. Second, I will reveal that Glaucon can not get the outcome he claims by prerequisite. Glaucon’s argument is unsafe.

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

In Book I of the Republic, Plato examines whether injustice is more profitable than justice. Thrasymachus claims that statement to be true so Socrates sets out to show that justice is stronger and more powerful than injustice. Also, that a just person is happy while an unjust person is unhappy. Socrates establishes right before with Thrasymachus that injustice is wisdom and virtue while injustice is ignorance. From this, Socrates believes it will be easily shown that justice is stronger. In this paper, I will begin by examining Socrates’ weaker argument that says a just person is happy. Here, he claims that the virtue of a soul is justice, and the soul has multiple functions that can only be performed well through justice. However, this