The Importance Of Justice In Plato's Republic

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. For Plato’s thesis – justice pays – to be validated, he has to prove two things, the first being that justice is inherently good. In

In the end, justice does not pay for any level of person in an ideal city. Plato must prove early on that justice is inherently good, and just actions are inherently good. The first point is dismissed for the sake of argument, and the second is uncertain due to the questions the myth of Gyges surfaces. The prime example of doing what is just is a citizen’s performance of his work within the city, thus making it just for the philosophers to rule. Despite ruling being a just action, ruling is an intrinsic evil, and thus does not pay the philosophers. This is more clearly defined looking at the producer’s work in the city. In the essential case of performing one’s job, justice does not pay the