Glaucon uses Ring of Gyges as an example to demonstrate that when people can get away from the consequences of being unjust, they will probably choose to become unjust for receiving benefits while having a good reputation of being justice (Plato, Republic book 2, p53). Both Socrates and Glaucon agrees that justice is something “good”, which is good in itself, or it can bring good as a consequence or both. But what if justice itself is not good and will not bring anything good alone with them?
Ring of Gyges is an extended expression of Thrasymachus’s famous claim: “Justice is simply the advantage of the stronger” (Plato, Republic book 1, p39). The one in power has the ability to define his behavior as being just, as the owner of the ring can …show more content…
One day one disciple of Great thief Chih asked, “Does the thief too obtain the Way?” Chih replies, “Of course. How could he get anywhere if he didn 't have a Way? Guessing what treasure lies in the room is sageliness; being the first one in is bravery; being the last one out is righteousness; knowing whether the job can be pulled off or not is wisdom; dividing up the loot fairly is benevolence. No one in the world ever succeeded in becoming a great thief if he didn 't have all five!”(Chuang tzu book 10) We all agree that sageliness, bravery, righteousness, wisdom and benevolence are five good characteristics we should obtain to be just. Great thief Chih also obtains these five virtues in his way, would that make him just? He does have the qualities that our social contract anonymously agree are what can be called just. But I don’t think anyone in their rightful mind will call him a just man. So I may boldly suggest that the social contract theory is also invalid since someone’s just can be the other’s unjust, there is no one single definition of what is justice that we can all agree …show more content…
(Chuang tzu book 10)When philosophers define what is justice, why not the thief steal justice as well? The claim of Thrasymachus is the best example of great thieves’ doing.
If we don’t define justice, then there will be no unjust to contrast, thus both consequences of just and unjust will seize to exists. Then people will not have to act justly because of the fear, and the great thieves will have no chance to doing unjust things while gaining a reputation for being just.
If there is justice exists as Socrates suggests, which is one good that bedding in our potential nature. Then we shall never define it with exact meaning. Because once it is defined, the injustice will follow along, and such “justice” will not be good in itself nor will the consequence it brings along be good either. Just as what Chuang tzu once said, “ Until the sage is dead, great thieves will never cease to appear, and if you pile on more sages in hopes of bringing the world to order, you will only be piling up more profit for Robber Chih. (Chuang tzu book
Ring of Gyges is an extended expression of Thrasymachus’s famous claim: “Justice is simply the advantage of the stronger” (Plato, Republic book 1, p39). The one in power has the ability to define his behavior as being just, as the owner of the ring can …show more content…
One day one disciple of Great thief Chih asked, “Does the thief too obtain the Way?” Chih replies, “Of course. How could he get anywhere if he didn 't have a Way? Guessing what treasure lies in the room is sageliness; being the first one in is bravery; being the last one out is righteousness; knowing whether the job can be pulled off or not is wisdom; dividing up the loot fairly is benevolence. No one in the world ever succeeded in becoming a great thief if he didn 't have all five!”(Chuang tzu book 10) We all agree that sageliness, bravery, righteousness, wisdom and benevolence are five good characteristics we should obtain to be just. Great thief Chih also obtains these five virtues in his way, would that make him just? He does have the qualities that our social contract anonymously agree are what can be called just. But I don’t think anyone in their rightful mind will call him a just man. So I may boldly suggest that the social contract theory is also invalid since someone’s just can be the other’s unjust, there is no one single definition of what is justice that we can all agree …show more content…
(Chuang tzu book 10)When philosophers define what is justice, why not the thief steal justice as well? The claim of Thrasymachus is the best example of great thieves’ doing.
If we don’t define justice, then there will be no unjust to contrast, thus both consequences of just and unjust will seize to exists. Then people will not have to act justly because of the fear, and the great thieves will have no chance to doing unjust things while gaining a reputation for being just.
If there is justice exists as Socrates suggests, which is one good that bedding in our potential nature. Then we shall never define it with exact meaning. Because once it is defined, the injustice will follow along, and such “justice” will not be good in itself nor will the consequence it brings along be good either. Just as what Chuang tzu once said, “ Until the sage is dead, great thieves will never cease to appear, and if you pile on more sages in hopes of bringing the world to order, you will only be piling up more profit for Robber Chih. (Chuang tzu book