Glaucon’s continuation of Thrasyamachus’s argument against “justice” is broken down into three parts in which he described that his argument will make an attack on different points. First, he began by asking the questions of “what sort of thing people claim justice is” and “where they say it comes from”. Second, he went on to note that “everyone who pursues it pursues it unwillingly as something necessary but not good”. Finally, he articulated that “people do it fittingly since the life of someone who’s unjust is much better than that of someone who’s just as they say”.
Glaucon slightly altered Thrasymachus’s argument by taking a different approach on his attack of justice. Whereas, Thrasymachus discussed that those seeking justice does so out of weakness, Glaucon argued that their innate ability to not change their standings drive them to seek a form of justice and that they do so in fact to protect themselves because they lack the ability to do any injustice. Glaucon explained that the ones seeking this justice are typically not kings and aristocrats, but rather they are lower classes that don’t have the means in order to protect themselves. As a result, they cling to the idea of “justice” like a shield for protection against their economic disadvantages. For as long as everyone follows this innate idea of justice, they won’t have to suffer penalty for not being in a stronger position. If there were no laws or penalties for being unjust, whether they be reputational or physical, people would not stay steadfast to living a just life, but rather they would do whatever their hearts desire. However, the thought of being punished as an unjust person is what keeps society in check. This is a strong point by...
... middle of paper ...
...e which I agree with is very different for justice for a person. Not taking on the challenge of discussing the value for an individual points to two things. Accepting that the argument made by Glaucon is true, and people are better off being unjust; or he lacks the ability to overturn and prove why individually the gain from being just outweighs being unjust.
These total points are why I believe both made very strong arguments. Socrates definitely defended the stance of justice for a society. I feel his position is to strong for Glaucon to apply his theory to a total society and win. Glaucon however, has made a convincing argument individually. So why they both proved their points, their points occupied different philosophical realms. One was pushed more societally while the other was individually. This is my belief in both are right in their respective framework.
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- In this essay I will defend the claim that happiness in the terms of Eudaimonism is not a sufficient enough argument to answer Glaucon’s Challenge. In the first section, I will explain the challenge by describing the different classifications of goods and how Glaucon’s definition of virtue places it at the lowest category. In the second section I will explain the notion of happiness in terms of Eudaimonism and how it relates to the challenge. In the final section I will explain how Julia Annas’ connects virtue and happiness via Eudaimonism to answer Glaucon’s Challenge, but how her response is not sufficient enough to elevate virtue to a higher level of goodness.... [tags: Virtue, Ethics, Plato, Meaning of life]
1564 words (4.5 pages)
- 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.... [tags: Soul, Plato, Justice, Ethics]
2040 words (5.8 pages)
- 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 f... [tags: Plato, Justice, Philosophy, Political philosophy]
1440 words (4.1 pages)
- In Book one of the Republic of Plato, several definitions of justice versus injustice are explored. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon and Thracymicus all share their opinions and ideas on what actions they believe to be just, while Socrates questions various aspects of the definitions. In book one, Socrates is challenged by Thracymicus, who believes that injustice is advantageous, but eventually convinces him that his definition is invalid. Cephalus speaks about honesty and issues of legality, Polemarchus explores ideas regarding giving to one what is owed, Glaucon views justice as actions committed for their consequences, and Socrates argues that justice does not involve harming anybody.... [tags: Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon]
1279 words (3.7 pages)
- Justice in Socrates’ City While Adeimantus and Glaucon appear to enthusiastically accept Socrates’ conclusions about the nature and benefits of justice at the end of Book IV, even going so far as to complete his argument about the profit of justice themselves, they only do so because they have followed Socrates’ argument linearly without going back to test new claims against established premises. Had they done so, they would have been to discover the gaps in Socrates’ logic and the full implications of his constructed city—a city that not only failed to illustrate how justice was profitable in itself and correlated with happiness, but actually proved the precise view of justice as a sacrifi... [tags: Socrates Book IV Justice]
793 words (2.3 pages)
- In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it.... [tags: The Republic Essays]
3023 words (8.6 pages)
- Plato’s interpretation of justice as seen in ‘The Republic’ is a vastly different one when compared to what we and even the philosophers of his own time are accustomed to. Plato would say justice is the act of carrying out one’s duties as he is fitted with. Moreover, if one’s duties require one to lie or commit something else that is not traditionally viewed along with justice; that too is considered just by Plato’s accounts in ‘The Republic.’ I believe Plato’s account of justice, and his likely defense against objections are both clear and logical, thus I will endeavor to argue his views as best as I can.... [tags: essays research papers]
985 words (2.8 pages)
- Although Hobbes has created a logical response to the Fool, I have some objections to his argument. According to Hobbes, every man has the right to self-preservation and are permitted to do whatever it takes to hold that right. This also means that the world’s worst criminal could reasonably refuse punishment. That person could escape imprisonment, lie under oath while in court, or commit theft and he or she could argue that it was all necessary for their self-preservation. Strictly speaking, this means anything one does could be deemed as necessary for his or her self-preservation and it could never be considered unjust or unreasonable.... [tags: Soul, Plato, Philosophy, Justice]
1004 words (2.9 pages)
- Justice is perhaps the most formidable instrument that could be used in the pursuit of peace. It allows for people to rise above the state of mere nature and war with one another. However the fool believes that justice is a mere tool to be used to acquire power and rule at his own discretion. Can it be possible for anyone to be that virtuous. Or does power acquired in that manner actually come from somewhere else. Through justice it’s possible to produce a sovereign that is in harmony with the very people that constitute its power.... [tags: Political philosophy, Justice, Rights, Liberty]
1589 words (4.5 pages)
- Republic by Plato War in Relation to Justice, Injustice, and the Just City Beginning in Book I Socrates states clearly that injustice causes war and justice causes the opposite, but by Book V he seems to have a completely different perspective on whether war is just or not. His mind apparently begins to change in Book II when he introduces the second class of people, namely the guardians, with the purpose of defending the city. Throughout Books II, IV and V Socrates discusses the topic of war in light of justice and finally concludes that war is the outworking of the perfectly just city.... [tags: Papers]
1043 words (3 pages)