In Plato's The Republic: Book II, Glaucon wants to know what the meaning of justice is so he goes on to converse more about the just and unjust with Socrates. Glaucon starts off by saying that he believes that there are three types of classes that can define good. The first one is the things that one desires because of the consequences, the second one is the things that one wants for their own interest, and the third one is the things we want for both, the consequences and interest. What Glaucon is trying to prove to Socrates is that for humans to be unjust is more desirable than to be just and that it is reasonable for humans to think so. In this essay I will analyze Galucon's reasons to his statement and counter argue his points.
…show more content…
For that to be true humans wouldn't have any emotions. Which is why I believe that there are people who are just because of their own sake. If someone acts unjust to someone else there is always the possibility that guilt is going to take over and in return cause the person to regret their unjust actions and wish to be just. Secondly, I believe that Glaucon speaks of human nature as if only materialistic items existed. Developed civilizations, such as Ancient Greece and the society we live in today are known for honoring people more for materialistic reasons from who has the newest iPhone to who has the 2015 Range Rover. But, that’s what happens once a society becomes a developed civilization. To really know that to be unjust is only for the consequences, in my opinion, human nature needs to be seen in the underdeveloped civilizations, where the number one priority is survival, for example, hunter-gatherers. If someone from their group hunts an animal that is too small for it to be shared with the rest, the ones that end up with no food might consider being unjust and steal food from the person who received. Not only is that being unjust for the consequences, which is to stay strong, but it is also being unjust for their own sake, for their health. Which proves that Glaucon didn’t really think too much about human nature
For that to be true humans wouldn't have any emotions. Which is why I believe that there are people who are just because of their own sake. If someone acts unjust to someone else there is always the possibility that guilt is going to take over and in return cause the person to regret their unjust actions and wish to be just. Secondly, I believe that Glaucon speaks of human nature as if only materialistic items existed. Developed civilizations, such as Ancient Greece and the society we live in today are known for honoring people more for materialistic reasons from who has the newest iPhone to who has the 2015 Range Rover. But, that’s what happens once a society becomes a developed civilization. To really know that to be unjust is only for the consequences, in my opinion, human nature needs to be seen in the underdeveloped civilizations, where the number one priority is survival, for example, hunter-gatherers. If someone from their group hunts an animal that is too small for it to be shared with the rest, the ones that end up with no food might consider being unjust and steal food from the person who received. Not only is that being unjust for the consequences, which is to stay strong, but it is also being unjust for their own sake, for their health. Which proves that Glaucon didn’t really think too much about human nature