In Plato's second book the Republic, we come across a philosopher by the name of Glaucon who is fascinated by the true meaning of justice. Glaucon argument is that you need a good reason to be just, but this reason is purely what comes about as a consequence in harmony with justice – this is Glaucon's challenge. His argument is not to deny that there is such a thing as justice, nor is it to say that there isn't a reason to be just, but that there's only one reason: because of the consequences of
acting otherwise. He believes that the avoidance of punishment and optimization of self-interest are what drive us to act justly. Following his realization, Glaucon makes it his goal to try to discover if there are benefits of being just without any outside rewards. Thus Glaucon challenges Socrates to prove justice as being the highest good and requests him to show that being just is good for its own sake; without the need for external rewards. The belief that justice is always pushed by reward is provocative and one that I do not believe to be true. Although Glaucon's persuasive stance on the subject is evident, I will take a close look at his challenge to Socrates' and shed light on the strength and weaknesses of Glaucon's challenge.
Glaucon provides excellent evidence and reasoning for his argument and by looking at it from the view of the natural man, one who doesn't have a spirit or conscience to refute injustice, his argument holds true. However, I personally do not agree with his argument that injustice is better than justice because my spirit, which is me at my innermost core, will not allow it to be true. Glaucon convincingly debates his two main points and follows to paint a picture of a perfectly just and perfectly
unjust man.
Peoples constant desire to focus on improving their own lives and their need for becoming bigger and better than those around them is the basis of Glaucon's first argument regarding the benefits of being unjust. Glaucon sheds light on humanity's natural ways and shows how the basis of injustice is really what makes justice. He expresses how each individual is concerned with trying to escape tragedy and any kind of loss within their lives. Be that as it may, due to the repercussion of acting in
an unjust manner surmounting the benefits, laws, and rules are created. He, therefore, sees justice as a social contract formulated on the basis that it is the greater evil among the two opposite extremes of injustice. Glaucon says that we cope with the accountability of our actions since we know we would endure more regrettable consequences without it. Therefore, Glaucon's first point summarizes that justice is practiced by people not because they want to but out of helplessness and fear of what
would happen if they did not. The second part of this argument states that people do the right thing not because they want to but rather because society and laws force them to do so. Fundamentally, justice comes from people's fear of weakness and concern of being exposed. To emphasize this point, Glaucon uses the example of the ring of Gyges. In the legend of Gyges, a Shepherd finds an invisibility ring. Gyges uses this ring to take over a kingdom and even kills the king. Glaucon asserts that even
a just man would act unjustly and give in to his selfish and power-hungry urges if he knew he could get away with it. Through this example, Glaucon reiterates his position stating that people are only just because they fear the punishments and lack the courage to act in the ways they actually desire.
As an individual, I do not agree with Glaucon's first point of argument. Firstly, I feel that it is not just anyone but specifically those that have had the first-hand experience regarding injustice that comes to the agreement on making laws. Those who have never experienced such treatment may not care or see injustice as an issue. Laws are created in order to prevent just individuals from experiencing similar misery that some people have already encountered. Furthermore, contrary to Glaucon's beliefs,
if we take the example of a guilty individual, this person should be able to be unjust and still find a way not to be caught for their acts. That being said, I'm sure there are people that – without being caught for their illegal actions – have decided to be a moral person. I believe individuals decide to take this path when the path of crime and unethical behaviors doesn't seem to fulfill them in the way that being a good person does. When looking at the second part of Glaucon's position, I believe
that although a certain percentage of people follow the rules because they fear the consequences, I believe that more people follow the rules because they know that this is the right thing to do. I don't believe that a just person would kill someone given the chance like Gyges, simply because they know they will not face punishment. When someone is just, I believe his or her conscience plays a big enough role in his or her lives to prevent them from acting in ungodly manners, no matter the situation.
This also relates to my other opposition that people fearing injustice has anything to do with them wanting to be just. Furthermore, it takes more strength to do the right thing even though it doesn't seem beneficial to you. Thus, someone that was actually just would do the right thing no matter the effect on them.
In Glaucon's second point of argument, he demonstrates both ends of injustice to prove that the life of an unjust person is much better than that of a just one. In order to successfully understand, Glaucon's says that it is necessary to compare both sides in their purest form. This means that both the just and the unjust person are displayed raw and at their most real forms. Glaucon states that most of the time the individual that is in reality just and noble is mistaken as being an unlawful individual
that causes harm to people and doesn't act appropriately. Nevertheless, this accused person is true to his/her consciences and feels a sense of responsibility for any actions. The unjust person, on the other hand, would be viewed as the complete opposite and would live a luxurious and stable life. Here Glaucon shows that the life of a bad person is better than that of a good person.
Looking at Glaucon's last point I don't feel convinced by his argument. Although the unjust person may have more materialistic things and a more comfortable lifestyle, I believe that karma is inevitable and will come around at some point. In the end, I believe noble people lead a more fulfilling and satisfying life and are the ones that know the meaning of true happiness. At the end of their life, a just person, I believe, will be more content and prouder of how they led their life. In addition,
in order for someone to live a "better life" that does not mean they need to have a luxurious life. Family, friends, and health is seen as enough wealth to many. On the other hand, when looking at real life, because it is unfair, it is common for an unjust person to live a more comfortable life than a just person. Although a just person is more likely to live a less comfortable and desirable life, the just person will get long-term benefits instead.
When envisioning how one can effectively counter Glaucon's whole argument of injustice, we can see that Glaucon seems to only recognize the effects of justice in comparison to unjust behaviors instead of the natural drawbacks that happen in their own harmony. In order to come up with a strong enough argument one must oppose Glaucon's points by looking at natural justice in a good city and just people to show that the virtues of an intrinsic good.
In conclusion, Glaucon presents a persuasive and effective development to prove his argument. Though his grounds hold good logic, his argument is only acceptable assuming that we listen to our natural desires and we completely ignore our conscience. Although Glaucon has provided adequate reasoning, I still do not agree with his argument because of my morals, inner conscience, and my belief will allow me to refute injustice. Ultimately, it depends on each individual on whether they are for or against
Glaucon's argument. I do believe that although Glaucon's theories have flaws, he has provided a challenge for Socrates to prove him wrong.