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…
concludes that if given the right circumstances any man would dive at the opportunity to commit an unjust act as long as they do not face punishment, as stated “The best is to do injustice without paying the penalty; the worst is to suffer it without being able to take revenge.” (Republic, page 1000 section 359). Glaucon mentions the inability to be an unjust person because of weakness, the lack of power. Every person is given the freedom to do as they like no matter their status as a just or unjust person, their choice of action revolves around societal ideas of fairness at times but are tested when they give in to their desires. These sudden desires to be better than others add to the conclusion that anyone would practice unjust acts if given the opportunity without being prosecuted by society, everyone has the motive to be the best they can be and sadly staying on the right lane in terms of being just doesn’t always put you ahead of the rest of the pack. At first glimpse one might think Glaucon’s argument is invalid because he jumps to a conclusion in which everyone is generalized as unjust, but as he develops his opinion it solidifies and becomes clear. The fact that anyone in their right mind would take the opportunity of committing an unjust act ranging from taking something from the marketplace with impunity, having sex with anyone, killing or releasing anyone from prison, and any other thing that would render them as god like makes Glaucon’s argument plausible. Although there is a generality of people in a sense claiming no one is just Glaucon ensures that there is one thing every person would be capable of doing that is seen as unjust, in fact he goes on to say “No one believes justice to be a good when it is kept private, since, wherever either person thinks he can do injustice with impunity, he does it.” (Republic, Page 1001 section 360). Everyone is faced with various challenges throughout their life, if given the power to hold something as powerful as Gyges’s ring many would take the chance and use it to its maximum potential, while there might still be a certain percentage of people that still decide to not take the ring and act justly society eventually mocks them and consider them fools for not taking the opportunity. Glaucon’s take on the unjust man shines light on his idea of the Gods providing the best to those that act unjustly, “… gods and humans provide a better life for unjust people than for just ones.” (Republic, page 1002 section 362). Glaucon’s argument genuinely reaches a logical conclusion that observes what type of person would live a happier life, in this case an unjust man would not live with the burden of always abying by the just acts expected from a just man, as well as the idea that if the rewards for acting justly were taken away people would not be as thrilled to do the right thing in certain occasions. Why should we think Glaucon’s argument has any plausibility, however small?
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…
wellbeing of society and their community. I think Glaucon’s conclusion is true because it digs deep into the cost benefit of being just as a person in a society.
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
comes in many different forms for a multitude of people. By making us think outside of the box and even consider the idea of an unjust world Glaucon did his job, therefore, he provides a wonderful and valid argument. Moreover, one might say the strongest objection to Glaucon’s argument is that the idea of everyone confirming to becoming unjust if given the opportunity is false because it has clear counterexamples. For example, in the case of cops and those people that are enlisted in military forces all around the world and put their lives on the line every day for what they believe in and for their people, this is a just act in many ways. Along with this counterexample comes the explanation that people in such predicaments would never settle to commit unjust acts as they don’t necessarily put their lives on the line every day for some sort of reward. In response to the counterexample mentioned above rewards do not only consist of physical things as it can also be represented in the form of recognition and fame. The argument presented is not a good one because it does not succeed at backing the objection, there are various rewards that come from serving in the police or military force. Moreover, just because cops and military officials are considered just people it doesn’t necessarily mean they are, the same temptations that overtake people and influence them to side with the unjust apply to these cops and soldiers as well. A well-known example, or shall I say well known examples, have been the recently common police brutality outbreaks around the United States that emphasize the unjust acts policemen and military officials are capable of. Whether it was for their own sick pleasure or the surge of power that allowed them to think they are above anyone else, they were still in the right mind to make their own decisions and personally decided to be unjust at the moment. This illustrates the ambiguity of the human race and how people can be seen as just but still manage to be unjust in the way they act according to different situations. Glaucon’s argument in The Republic is effectively portrayed throughout Book II with the usage of the story of the ring of Gyges’s, his argument is a good one because it allows the reader and people in general to relate. With such a conclusive statement Glaucon is able to solidify his stance on being just and how people can never truly be one hundred percent just. The inability to go through with something that does not produce some sort of reward is human nature, one may feel happiness within themselves through being just in a sense but there is no doubt that an unjust person lives a happier life. I mainly agree with Glaucon and his argument because I don’t believe it is possible to be just without any rewards expected, being unjust is a part of life in a sense because if tested to a certain point and given the right circumstance anyone would actually take the chance no matter how just they claim to be. If there was no prison to put people in, there would be nothing stopping people from honestly doing as they please because the pleasures of life are not always seen as just. This is why being just is a social construct that does not exist in the real world, how something that is impossible to truly practice actually exists still baffles me.
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.
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...
Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual. However, Plato examines the justice system from the perfect society and Aeschylus starts at the curse on the House of Atreus and the blood spilled within the family of Agamemnon.
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.
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
When relating Plato’s “Ring of Gyges” to the culture that we live in now, he explains that persons are selfish and egoistic. The reason is that people do not always do the unfair things because they fear of being caught and harmed. As a human being, everything we do is coherent. When it comes to Cultural relativism, it is our beliefs, customs, and ethical virtue that relate to our social context. The main purpose is that most people do the right or wrong things that affects the society. The story explains the meaning behind what Glaucon is saying about his culture and what he had to go through and it contradicts his egoism.
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.
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.
The three men discuss justice as if it's a good thing. Glaucon wants Socrates to prove that it is, and argues if it is just to do wrong in order to have justice, or on the other hand, is it unjust to never do wrong and therefore have no justice. For example; a man who lies, cheats and steals yet is a respected member of the community would be living a just life, in comparison to a man who never lied, cheated, nor stole anything but lives in poverty and is living an unjust life. Glaucon assumes the life of a just man is better than the life of an unjust man.
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.
...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.
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.
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.