Socrates And Glaucon Analysis

Book II opens with Socrates and Glaucon arguing about the definition of justice. Socrates is trying to persuade Glaucon and Adeimantus that it is better in every way to be just, rather than unjust. Glaucon argues that justice can belong to three different types of goods. The sort of good we choose to have for the purpose of joy. The type of good where we love something for what it is, while also loving it for its consequence, such as health (Plato and Reeve 302). Finally, the third type of good is when we love something only for the sake of its consequence, such as physical training. Socrates agrees that all three of these goods exist, but he only places justice in the second type of good, or that one must love something for its own sake and its consequence. However, Glaucon disagrees and says that the majority of people think that justice is not appreciated for itself, but only the consequences of justice. Glaucon then attempts to improve Thrasymachus’ argument by stating what justice is thought to be, that people who practice justice do not do it voluntarily, and why people act this way (Plato and Reeve 303). Glaucon demonstrates this by telling the story of Gyges ring; a

He adds that people do not praise justice for what it is, but for the good reputation it brings in ones life and the afterlife (Plato and Reeve 302). He first reiterates that injustice is easy to obtain and that unjust deeds are more satisfying than just ones (Plato and Reeve 308). Adeimantus then goes on to say that people would rather have the appearance of justice rather then actually having it. He says that even though the Gods are said to reward just behavior rather than unjust behavior, the Gods can be persuaded to reward the appearance of justice. After Glaucon and Adeimantus make their arguments, they request that Socrates demonstrate how justice is wanted and good in itself without any external