The Pros And Cons Of Socrates

1085 Words 5 Pages
I thought both Glaucon and Adeimantus had made very strong and serious objections against Socrates about the view of justice being an intrinsic good, but I would argue that their arguments could only apply to certain people and personalities. Glaucon suggests that there are three types of good. The first good Glaucon had explained was intrinsic good which he had described “as a kind of good we welcome, not because we desire what comes from it, but because we welcome it for its own sake-joy” (Plato.357 b). The second type of good that Glaucon had introduced in his argument with Socrates was both intrinsic and extrinsic good which Glaucon had described as a good that “we like for its own sake and also for the sake of what comes from it” an example …show more content…
Glaucon’s also gives some examples of this good, in which he had suggested that “physical training, medical treatment when sick, medicine itself, and other ways of making money” (Plato.357 d). While Glaucon states these three diverse types of goods, he encourages Socrates to choose which good he believed justice fit under. Socrates then suggests that he believed justice was both an intrinsic and extrinsic good, “among the finest goods, as something to be valued by anyone who is going to be blessed with happiness, both because of itself and because of what comes from it” (Plato.358 a). As a strategy tempt Socrates to elaborate on his opinion of justice, both Glaucon and Adeimantus each state that justice is an extrinsic good. Though they both argue that justice is an extrinsic good, they give very strong different accounts of why that is. In Glaucon’s he states that people are just only because they believe that being unjust could lead to consequences punishments, specifically he believes that “people who practice it do it unwilling” (Plato.358 …show more content…
Adeimantus suggests that people are only just because they believe that they will be rewarded in their afterlife. He suggests that the influence of religion and its belief of heaven or hell, has a significant impact on why people feel the necessity to be just. In Plato’s The Republic Adeimantus states that “Gods reward the good. Human beings are good because they expect to be rewarded by the god or gods” (Plato. 362d-363e). In accordance to this, Adeimantus also states that “there is the danger of being caught and punished. But here again the traditional stories about the divine can help. The gods can be bought off with large gifts and sacrifices” (365a-366b). In this statement Adeimantus suggests that unjust individuals could redeem themselves to the Gods, after wrong doings by offering gifts or forgiveness to the Gods, as a way of ensuring they do not get punished for their actions in the after lives. Though Adeimantus’s argument of religion and Gods having major influences on the behavior of people was strong, one can argue that his argument was only relatable at the time period in which Adeimantus, Glaucon, and Socrates had lived in. In modern time, not everyone is a believer in religion or a God, there are people who now believe in science, which allows me to argue that not everyone is just because they believe good fortune will happen to the them in the future, likewise in

Related Documents