In The Republic, Book II Glaucon develops the story of the ring of Gyges’s ancestor where he raises the argument that one would not practice justice if they could be unjust without being caught. Glaucon states that justice is only attractive to the eye if there is a reward at stake, “…Justice belongs to the onerous kind, and is to be practiced for the sake of the rewards… but is to be avoided because of itself as something burdensome.” (Republic, page 999 section 358). The idea of unjust practices being more appealing to people rises from Glaucon’s bold statement, “… the life of an unjust person is, they say, much better than that of a just one.” (Republic, page 999 section 358). This argument questions the morals of all humans, since Glaucon …show more content…
Well here’s one reason, no matter who the person might be the real reason people strive to act in just ways derives from the rewards that come with the acts themselves. When these rewards are stripped from people there is no real reason to act in such ways since there is no outcome to look forward to except the general happiness that comes from being just. As an unjust person there is a broader array of happiness that radiates from the various sources that would be considered wrong in the eyes of a just person, taking certain chances and opportunities is the difference between the happiness held in a person’s life. So why should anyone consider the importance of Glaucon’s argument? Well here is one reason, although the context of Plato’s scripts are somewhat aged Glaucon’s argument proves to be effective till this day, the idea of living a happy life and decisions between unjust and just acts still apply to people now a days. The argument itself is important because it portrays the idea that no one will truly be just and live a happy life if stripped from all the rewards that come from acting in such a way, this is a common concept in society where people do things for the outcome or reward instead of the actual good that it brings to the community. So it allows people to realize there will always be wrongdoing in the world as long as people just care about the rewards and their selves more than the …show more content…
No one ever talks about the real reason why they act in just ways, and if they do most times they sugar coat their answers with bogus in order to seem just in front of their peers. In my opinion Glaucon is right when he speaks about people only being just when there is a reward to the action, and the fact that everyone is capable of being unjust if given the opportunity with the right circumstances. Most people suggest that Glaucon might have over generalized the human population by stating that all people are unjust, but frankly I agree with him and think that his argument has enough support to render it a good argument. The fact that Glaucon illustrates the story of Gyges’s ring as one that can be relatable in a sense helps us put ourselves in a position where we must also identify with the just or the unjust. As we step into the shoes of someone that is given the opportunity to be unjust without any consequences imposed we quickly realize as humans we have a natural drive to succeed and be happy and as Glaucon says countless times, the unjust man lives a happier life than a truly just man. I say truly just because although people might seem just in the way they are, they can be going behind everyone’s back committing unjust acts. We as humans are bound to give in to our own pleasures including our special needs such as sex and at times excitement which
Glaucon presents an argument against justice in order to pressure Socrates to give a more convincing argument for living a just life. He was unsatisfied with Plato’s counterargument against Thrasymachus. Glaucon wants to believe that justice is good and that living a just life will result in a good life, unlike the Fool in the Leviathan. However, Glaucon strengthening the argument that the unjust life is better. Glaucon starts his argument with the three ways in which something can be good: good in itself, good in itself and good for its consequences, and bad or indifferent in itself but good for its consequences. After presenting these three types of good things, Glaucon asks Socrates to place justice into one of the three categories. Socrates’s responds by saying the he would define justice as the kind of good that we like both for its own sake and for its consequences. Glaucon then requests that Socrates present a convincing argument that justice is good for its own sake, regardless of its consequences. He essentially wants to hear a compelling argument that shows justice as a kind of good that is good for its own sake. Glaucon eventually developed a case that supports the unjust life. He argues that anyone, just or unjust, would commit acts of injustice if they could get away with it and not suffer any consequences. To support his claim, he
Before discussing justice in the epic, it is important to establish the meaning of the term. For our present purpose, justice will specifically apply to the social system of moral checks and balances. Acts that are valued in society are rewarded materially or emotionally. Acts that are devalued lead to punishment. Also, recipients of unmerited punishment receive compensation for their injuries.
They have a stronger ability to correct mistakes and justify wrong doings. Is it, conversely, any different to live justly and morally or unjustly and immorally? Plato writes, “Which is the more profitable, to be just and act justly and practice virtue, whether seen or unseen of gods and men, or to be unjust and act unjustly, if only unpunished and unreformed?” (Plato, Republic, Moodle Document). This question poses questions within itself.
Human beings are an impressionable race who learn from each other what they should and should not do. While this is sometimes a useful trait, in other instances it can lead to death and cruelty. This is showcased copiously in A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. The book starts off with the French nobility horribly mistreating the destitute peasants, beating them and starving them without feeling any guilt whatsoever. To the rebels, it does not matter whether the people they execute are innocent or guilty of crimes against them, and instead see the entire upperclass as responsible for what a portion of them actually did. In this way, the cycle comes to a complete
...cting unjustly. Therefore, justice is determined to be intrinsically valuable from the negative intrinsic value of injustice that was demonstrated, as well as from parts of the soul working together correctly. Glaucon also wants Plato to show that a just life is better than an unjust life. It has been shown that when the soul is in harmony, it only acts justly. It is in a person’s best interests to have a healthy soul, which is a just soul, so that the person can be truly happy. This means that by showing justice has an intrinsic value, it can also be concluded that it is better to live a just life opposed to an unjust life. The conclusion that I have drawn is that Plato’s argument against the intrinsic value of injustice is sufficient to prove that the just life is superior, even if the unjust life may be more profitable.
The strongest reasonable objection to Glaucon’s argument is that not everyone in Gyge’s ancestor’s position would perform injustice. By arguing that whenever a “person thinks he can do injustice with impunity, he does it,” (360d) Galucon limits his argument by specifying that “anyone” in Gyge’s ancestor’s position would perform injustice. There are individuals throughout history who have been selfless and pure such as Frederick Douglas, Martin Luther King, Harriet Tubman and many more who have acted selflessly and tried to help others as much as they could without any regard for themselves. These individuals are unlikely to act in the same manner as Gyge’s ancestor.
Like the other virtues, justice is a mean between two extremes. It requires both to know one’s limits and be able to recognize the mean of what is just, which is a measuring, prudence, or the practical wisdom to carry out the action. On the other hand, the excess, which is receiving more than one’s share, and deficiency, which is receiving less than ones’ share, both can be named as injustice. Also, in the virtue of justice, it does not end at the limits of oneself. But it goes beyond to negotiate how an individual stands in relation to the space of the whole. Similarly, the measuring requires an adjustment of a particular justice or injustice, with reference to a vision of the whole of justice. Justice is, then, that puts one outside of oneself with a view to one’s belonging in a community with other people. This does not mean that the significance of the individual is diminished in justice; rather, these are the paths of justice that strengthen the significance that the individual cultivates. Also these paths of justice empower the excellence of virtues in oneself to make the community of which one is part a site of flourishing for oneself and others. However, beyond the general meaning of justice, there are two different kinds of
First, according to Glaucon’s belief, why do most people act reasonable? Glaucon states that “If you look at what people really are, then you will see that they believe to do wrong is desirable and to suffer wrong is undesirable” (Glaucon 78). In detail, we do not want to suffer the wrong, but we bargain with others and make a simple compact (in other words a social contract) to not harm each other. For instance, people can learn the wrong things and it could be part of their culture. Maybe stealing something can be something grateful at
Initially Thrasymachus states that Justice is ‘nothing else but the interest of the stronger’. Cross and Woozley identify four possible interpretations; the Naturalistic definition, Nihilistic view, Incidental comment, and the more useful Essential analysis. The ‘Essential Analysis’: “An action is just if and only if it serves the interest of the stronger,” with Thrasymachus stating the disadvantages of Justice and advantages of Injustice. This leads to problems with the stronger man, is it merely the promotion of self-interests? If Justice favours the interests of the stronger, is this simply from the perception of the weak with morality not concerning the stronger? Cross re-formulates Thrasymachus’s view as ‘Justice is the promotion of the ‘strongers’ interest’, therefore both weak and strong can act justly in furthering the strongers interests. However, complication occurs when we understand that Justice is another’s good: “You are not aware tha...
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 simply a formality for maintaining a good reputation and for achieving one’s goals. He claimed that the only reason why a person would choose to be unjust rather than just due to the fear of punishment. This is supported by the story of the shepherd who became corrupted as a result of finding a ring which made him invisible. He took over the kingdom through murder and intrigue since he knew there could be no repercussions for his unjust actions. In addition, Adiamantus stated that unjust people did not need to fear divine punishment since appeals could be made to Gods’ egos via sacrifices. Finally, Glaucon gave an example of the extreme unjust person who has accumulated great wealth and power which he juxtaposed with an extreme moral man who is being punished unjustly for his crimes. Clearly, injustice is preferable to justice since it provides for a more fruitful life.
To be just or unjust. To be happy or unhappy? Men fall into these two categories. Why does a man act according to these 2 extremes? Is it because they fear punishment? Are they quivering in fear of divine retribution? Or do men do just things because it is good for them to do so? Is justice, good of its rewards and consequences? Or is it good for itself. What is justice? Are the people who are just, just as happy as the people who are unjust? Plato sheds light on these questions and says yes, I have the definition of justice and yes, just people are happy if not happier than unjust people. Plato show’s that justice is worthwhile in and of itself and that being a just person equates to being a happy person. In my opinion, Plato does a good job and is accurate when explaining what it is to be just and this definition is an adequate solution to repairing an unjust person or an unjust city or anything that has an unjust virtue and using the definition of what justice is accurately explains why just people are happier than unjust people.
Throughout all of history, a just man has been considered an individual who lives a life of excellence. However, as time has progressed, so has the definition of a “life of excellence” itself. Thus, an individual who was considered just in the 5th century BCE would possess very different characteristics than a just man today, despite the fact that both were considered to be men who achieved areté: the life of excellence.
...peace and wellbeing of all citizens. For the arguments presented by Glaucon, justice is simply put into place to prevent the sufferings of injustice, ensuring that those who commit injustice against us receive some sort of punishment because they have committed injustice. For Socrates argument, justice is a good virtue that is intrinsic, while those who live justly live happy lives, contrary to the miserable life of the unjust person. It is apparent that people will have varied opinions on the nature of justice, and whether it is a good or evil within society. Regardless of the different viewpoints, many of them agree upon one thing; justice is an integral part of civil society, helping to codify a law system of what is right and wrong, which actions are accepted and which are punishable, and what will lead to the protection of citizens and peace within a society.
For many years, dating back to the first birth of man there has been the ultimate question of what makes a man just. This question has been pondered by numerous great philosophers. The question is varied to answer because of a multitude of opinions due to the nature of human diversity. Whether or not there is an objective answer to the question still remains a mystery. Plato and Epicurus have both given their detailed opinions of what makes one just. Plato believes that justness is something that comes from a more internal location dealing with the soul this disagrees with the idea that Epicurus holds which is justness is more of a physical or external matter. In this paper I will prove that Plato's ideas on this subject are the more appropriate and more truthful.
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil. This is where Plato’s argument that justice is in one’s self-interest is disturbed. This paper will discuss the idea that justice is not in one’s self-interest, and thus does not pay.