Glaucon Justice Analysis

Improved Essays
Problem set 2

1.) What, according to the theory developed by Glaucon in Republic II, is justice? Why and in what sense is it good to be just person, and bad to be an unjust person?

According to the theory developed by Glaucon, justice is the case where people agreed to be good to each other, so that not to end up in a chaos. It is better to be just, for people will be in a better situation, rather than if they will choose injustice as a way to act. In Republic’s book two, Glaucon sets up a model to demonstrate what justice is. In his model, he differentiates between four theoretical situations that could possibly occur. The first scenario is where an individual, as well as, society act justly towards one another. In such case, an individual
…show more content…
Glaucon demands that justice is not intrinsically valuable, but something we endure for the sake of the benefits it brings. He tells the myth of Gyges to provide the evidence that people think justice is rather a burden than good in itself. The point of this story is to show that if any human will have such ring, it will be perfectly in his best interests to always pick injustice over justice. Moreover, Glaucon claims that by nature, human beings are competitive and naturally they always want to make injustice. However, since in reality, there is no ring of Gyges, it is in human’s best interests to do justice, for otherwise they will end up in the chaos. By acting just, a person wants to get justice in return. That is why it is better to be just – to end up in the best realistic option. Oppositely, it is bad to be an unjust person, since by picking injustice, the one will break the agreement and he will get bad things in return. This will lead to a universal injustice that will create the chaos in the society. Such individual will end up in the third worst option there …show more content…
In order to show that human’s soul is plurality, Socrates uses the principle of opposites – a single thing is never characterized by opposites at the same time, in relation to the same thing, and in the same respect. Since this principle must be true, it is impossible for one thing to be conflicted. Sometimes, it appears that a thing is beautiful and ugly at the same time; whenever such situation occurs, it must mean that there is more than one thing. For example, there will be no contradiction if a chair is beautiful and ugly at the same time, as long as it is beautiful in respect to its form and ugly in respect to its color. Otherwise, a chair must be either purely beautiful or purely ugly. The justification of the soul derives from the psychic conflict. If there is only one part in human’s soul, it will never be conflicted, thus there always will be one choice. However, that is the common case when a human being wants something and doesn’t want the same thing, at the same time, in the same way, and relative to the same

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    The Theory of Opposites essentially states that opposites do not admit each other but they produce each other (70e-72a). Thus, Socrates’ lines of reasoning are coherent because if the soul were a harmony, it in no way could be disharmony or wickedness. Yet, we previously proved that the soul is…

    • 1575 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Too much or too little of something is bad. In order to avoid this, one has to find the golden mean, which differs for everyone. One must find balance in all aspects of life that will give someone the right impulses, judgment, and character. In regards to revenge, revenge is seen as a passion of malice, in which one harms others for one’s own sake. Revenge is not in his mean diagram because vindictiveness is bad in moderation, excess, and deficiency.…

    • 1625 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Glaucon claims that people act justly unwillingly and when comparing perfectly just and perfectly unjust individuals, he concluded that those who live unjustly live better. Glaucon presents a quite compelling case on the exclusively instrumental value of justice, based on necessity and relative profitability. He argues that those “who practice justice do so unwillingly as something compulsory”(359), for they lack the ability to do the opposite with impunity. He goes against Socrates’ theory that humans act justly as a sacred notion apart of the human soul and characterizes it as an acceptance within individuals to avoid the suffering and consequences of injustice. Glaucon supports his theory out of his analogy of the Rings of Gyges where those who practiced justice only did so out of fear and as soon as the barrier was lifted, they started to commit bad deeds.…

    • 1319 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Utilitarian Vs Mill

    • 2422 Words
    • 10 Pages

    The reason why it is better is because the Kantian approach seems more practical for real world situations than the utilitarian does. It forces the person to think and be conscious of the intentions and the actions that one carries out. If one thinks of it as becoming a universal law that they cannot be exempt from, then they are less likely to commit an action that is considered morally wrong. The utilitarian encourages the individual to seek aggregate happiness for themselves and the group, and to ensure that it happens through any way possible. This opens the possibility to using harmful acts, such as murder, cheating and lying to ensure that group happiness is existent in a large amount.…

    • 2422 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Without the idea of being socially "correct" would cause a collapse in social acceptance. To one, from their perspective, being greedy is "the right thing to do" because it makes them feel good, even though to the rest of the universal group it is frowned upon; which causes the pack to turn. "Every other rational being thinks of his existence by means of the same rational ground which holds also for myself; thus it is at the same time an objective principle from which, as a supreme practical ground, it must be possible to derive all laws of the will." (Ibid.,…

    • 1398 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He also argues that a completely ethical person will not be conflicted about his ethical choice, opposite of Kant, who thinks that a person can make an ethical choice while desiring the wrong alternative. In fact, he prefers that, because it shows that the person is doing his duty, not the action just because it makes him happy. Kant might defend himself by saying that it would be too easy for a person to succumb to selfish desires if he is gaining happiness from his virtuous acts, and any action is not moral if there are any external motivators, but I will show how this defense fails near the end of the paper. Kant and Aristotle have very different opinions on what makes a person virtuous and what defines a virtuous act. My thoughts on morality line up more with Aristotle’s.…

    • 1242 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Someone who is non-consequentialist who goes by the natural law theory, or the divine command theory, would make a decision that may not directly affect their morals, and may not maximize happiness does compared to someone who has virtue ethics. For this same reason is why I believe virtue ethics to be a form of consequentialism, more closely to utilitarianism because they seek to maximize good over evil as well as…

    • 1690 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The second formulation is the ‘Principle of Ends not Means’, it works on the basis that all people are equal and therefore it is wrong to exploit others or use them for personal benefits. This formulation shows how Kant had a respect for the value of humans, which is obviously important for an ethical theory; Kant believed that all people were an end in themselves. It also displays the importance of intention. You shouldn’t carry out an act that you know will treat someone as just a means, even if it benefits a greater good (contrast to utilitarianism). Kant thought that through helping others gain happiness (not treating them as just means) we also developed our own moral perfection- this also links in with Kant’s desire for a better society overall.…

    • 1607 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The act is being justified to the conservative society because the individual is acting with no morals. In the other end, Kant and Mill will agree that this act can become morally wrong when adding individual moral values. The act is morally permissible as long as both parties do not add any individual value to the act. However, when one individual is not being satisfied than the other party involved becomes an object to the action. As humans, the impulse of sexual desire is a need to be satisfied but without being objectified by any party otherwise this act becomes…

    • 1103 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This is all hypothetical assuming one is absolute, but if one is already perfect, is there room for improvement or expansion? As previously stated the answer is no. The only way there could be an enhancement or progress is if the culture or individual was not perfect to begin with. This idea counters the entire base of ethical relativism; if one follows their moral code then are morally right. To not follow one’s moral code for any reason, even improvement or change of heart, makes one morally wrong.…

    • 872 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays