Comparing Justice In Glaucon And Attimentus

Justice is something of importance to Socrates, considering the pedestal he puts it on. In the eyes of Socrates, justice is a virtue; one that’s good in its self. All the while, standing in the midst of opposition, Socrates remains firm. It is already apparent the power behind the consequences of justice. So much so, that it leads certain people, like Thrasymachus, to believe that justice’s one best and only attribute is indeed its consequences. Then there’s Glaucon and Attimentus, who bring up the argument of justice being a social contract. This works as a suitable medium falling in between two extreme scenarios of getting trampled over while not being able to do anything about it and stepping all over anyone and everyone without any form of penalty. And then there’s Cephalus, who has this conventional idea of justice. He believes that being truthful and paying your dues is the essence of justice, nothing more nothing less. Despite the contradictory views of justice, Socrates makes it his mission to not only share his insight on justice but also thoroughly elucidate on the matter. …show more content…
Justice doesn’t pay in the long run because it’s no good for you. Being the sophist he is, Thrasymachus grips on to his theory with conviction. He elaborates by saying injustice is better than justice because justice is only advantageous for the strong and those that are in power because they simply make up the rules. Just behavior only benefits other people, not the person behaving justly. Thrasymachus insinuates that justice is the abnormal restriction on our normal yearning to want more. Justice is an assumed resolution foisted on us, and it does no good to anyone to adhere to it. The sensible thing to do is to disregard justice completely, according to