Imagine a man that always donate clothes and feeds the homeless. This man regularly visits children with terminal illnesses and is one of the largest donors to Susan G. Komen for the Cure non-profit organization. He is viewed by tens of thousands as a saint, heaven sent or a reincarnation of Jesus himself. A just man in the eyes of many, but this man has twisted dark secrets; which involve human trafficking, murder of any competitor and extortion of politicians. The man is an unjust person by nature but is viewed as just. These are the types of argument of Glaucon in comparison to Socrates on justice and injustice. Glaucon makes arguments for injustice and its perks and Socrates’ arguments for justice. An investigation of the nature of
…show more content…
Guilt is definite as, “a bad feeling caused by knowing or thinking that you have done something bad or wrong” [3]. A person hits and kill their neighbor 's dog and the person felt they should compensate the neighbor in some type of way. Socrates argues that the man could take what he wants but still will be empty-handed since his actions will still be getting the best of him. Altruism is, “the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others” [3]. Socrates tells the stories of the farmers, city building and entrepreneurs. A farmer has to feed and clothe his family and produces foods for other. The farmer must work long days to prepare food and share it with other. The farmer must learn to be a business owner by trading and selling his products with others. All this would create a community where buying and selling goods and services are taking places. The farmer at the end of day could feel proud of him, in the fact he provides for his family and build good reputation as a business man. Socrates concludes that justice will need to be follow in the individual, then into the community [1]. Glaucon and Socrates both make strong arguments of justice and injustice, but Glaucon may have a slight edge over the …show more content…
This man does not have one ounce of guilt in his soul. In his mind, all the good deeds out weights the other endeavors he is involved in. This man is praised throughout the land and worshipped like a god. He had the best of both worlds; the ability to be able to commit unjust acts towards other and immunity to any punishment, as well as make millions of dollars from it. Sadly he is able to be treated like a savior. If this man died and he is able to confess his sins to gods, he might have the opportunity to lives among gods. This is a terrible man with a façade of the life, but many would like to be shielded from any justice. Most people would take ring and do what their heart desire without consequence. Consequences and laws ground us to the do no unlawful acts. If we take this factor out of the equation, people will do what they feel most comfortable with doing without feeling guilt. In conclusion, this paper presented the nature of justice, Glaucon’s argument for injustice, Socrates arguments for justice and a subjective elaboration on justice. The nature of justice is the best and worst of justice. Glaucon conclusion that that unjust is better than just, because of the instant awards and perks. Socrates felt that justice would need to be found within the individual. When consequences are not an issue, people will do what they feel most comfortable with doing without feeling
Guilt is definite as, “a bad feeling caused by knowing or thinking that you have done something bad or wrong” [3]. A person hits and kill their neighbor 's dog and the person felt they should compensate the neighbor in some type of way. Socrates argues that the man could take what he wants but still will be empty-handed since his actions will still be getting the best of him. Altruism is, “the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others” [3]. Socrates tells the stories of the farmers, city building and entrepreneurs. A farmer has to feed and clothe his family and produces foods for other. The farmer must work long days to prepare food and share it with other. The farmer must learn to be a business owner by trading and selling his products with others. All this would create a community where buying and selling goods and services are taking places. The farmer at the end of day could feel proud of him, in the fact he provides for his family and build good reputation as a business man. Socrates concludes that justice will need to be follow in the individual, then into the community [1]. Glaucon and Socrates both make strong arguments of justice and injustice, but Glaucon may have a slight edge over the …show more content…
This man does not have one ounce of guilt in his soul. In his mind, all the good deeds out weights the other endeavors he is involved in. This man is praised throughout the land and worshipped like a god. He had the best of both worlds; the ability to be able to commit unjust acts towards other and immunity to any punishment, as well as make millions of dollars from it. Sadly he is able to be treated like a savior. If this man died and he is able to confess his sins to gods, he might have the opportunity to lives among gods. This is a terrible man with a façade of the life, but many would like to be shielded from any justice. Most people would take ring and do what their heart desire without consequence. Consequences and laws ground us to the do no unlawful acts. If we take this factor out of the equation, people will do what they feel most comfortable with doing without feeling guilt. In conclusion, this paper presented the nature of justice, Glaucon’s argument for injustice, Socrates arguments for justice and a subjective elaboration on justice. The nature of justice is the best and worst of justice. Glaucon conclusion that that unjust is better than just, because of the instant awards and perks. Socrates felt that justice would need to be found within the individual. When consequences are not an issue, people will do what they feel most comfortable with doing without feeling