The Republic Of Socrates: A Life Of Justice

In this essay, I argue that it is better to lead a life of justice than a life of injustice. In The Republic of Plato, Socrates sets out to determine what justice is. He and a group of his peers discuss justice, its core tenants, and what it means to lead a just life. Socrates is then accosted by three of his peers. Their argument is that the man who leads a life of injustice will be happier, make more profits, and succeed in life more than the man who is just. Socrates argues each of these claims until his peers admit that they have been bested by his logic.

The first of Socrates ' peers to challenge his idea of justice is Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus makes the claim that " 'just ' or 'right ' means nothing but what is to the interest of the stronger party," (p. 18). Which is to say, that justice is determined by whoever happens to be in power. He makes the argument that those who have power over others determine what is just, and in

Glaucon presents his challenge first. He is a man who believes in justice, but he is not convinced that it is a virtue, rather that it is a necessary hardship that men impose on themselves. Left to their own devices, without social construct and laws, every man would return to a state of being of general selfishness and injustice. Justice, he says, "is always practiced with reluctance, not as good in itself, but as a thing one cannot do without," (p. 43). Though he believes in justice, he is not convinced that men commit acts of justice solely for the sake of just being good men. He proposes that he play the part of devil 's advocate, and engage Socrates in conversation which will finally convince Glaucon that justice is more than just a necessary compromise between the best possible outcome - doing wrong - and the worst possible outcome - being wronged - that men commit to unwillingly. He argues that it is "much better... to seem virtuous than to be so," (p.