Justice In Glaucon's Three Kinds Of Goods

In an attempt to amass an overall consensus of justice being desirable as a benefit to the health of the soul, and the necessity placed on maintaining its ideals as a virtue (as expressed by Socrates to resolve Thrasymachus's definition); Glaucon extends his argument of justice to include the concept of the Three Kinds of Goods. As explained, all goods can be divided into three classes: as a mere means such as physical labor, as an end akin to joy, and as both a means and an end comparable to maintaining knowledge (Plato 32 [II]). Each assertion made by Glaucon, is an attempt to solicit the most authentic form of what justice is and to determine which kind of good it perpetuates.
Although an advocate for the belief that justice is coveted both as a means and an end, Glaucon alludes to the fact that most individuals classify justice under the first group: justice is no more than a mere means. He continues …show more content…
In this model, both justice and injustice have been forgotten, and it is not until Glaucon’s suggestion of luxuries and opulence that these contrasting ideals seem to come into perspective. This alludes to the notion that when wants, such as luxuries and desires, are introduced into the city, is when the concept of injustice is introduced. By creating circumstances that lead others to develop jealousy and greed, it ultimately stimulates the manipulation of unjust acts. Due to this realization, Socrates has created a just city that is only based on needs and diminishes the idea of wants. Therefore, he concludes that justice within a city is a means and an end and preserves the duty of the citizens to themselves as well as others. The intent of this conclusion is to profess the importance of not committing unjust acts to gain worldly advantage over