Comparing Justice In Glaucon And Adeimantus

Glaucon and Adeimantus were both prominent advocates with their perspectives against justice being an intrinsic good. An intrinsic good - something good in itself, what we value for what it naturally is and nothing more, such as friendship or happiness or emotions as a whole are considered to be intrinsic goods. Glaucon raised experimental ideas against Socrates’ philosophy towards justice and challenged him with narrative examples and whatnot. He also brought forth that there are 3 types of good: intrinsic, instrumental and intrinsic/instrumental - the combination of both. Glaucon abided in justice being practiced with reluctance and that justice is done out of fear from consequence, therefore Glaucon raises the most objection in relation …show more content…
This story involves the telling of a man that is considered to be just and his actions once obtaining the ability to become invisible through the power of a ring that he discovered in a tomb inside a cave. With this, he ended up using his newly acquired power to seduce the queen, murder the current king and become the King of Lydia himself. This narrative was told to show that once there is no longer an obligation to be just, in this case since no one will be there to witness/prove your actions otherwise, a person will not remain just and pursue what they believe will benefit themselves to the fullest extent. He was against Socrates’ definition, leading to his separation of good into 3 different ways, displaying that justice is only viable when one is not in fear of the consequences that derive from injustice-type …show more content…
Undeniably, Adeimantus presents many viable arguments when discussing against Socrates, he agrees that most philosophers are of no help to him when he converses, yet Socrates is different. Their conversation raises viable points between both that are agreeable upon both parties, although many of Adeimantus’ points are based on Glaucon’s enough times in the