Glaucon's Argument Analysis

In his speech Glaucon introduces us to the argument stating his beliefs on why do people created and follow justice. Most of his argument is based on the idea that “the badness of suffering it [injustice] far exceeds the goodness of doing it [justice]” (358 e). He believes that as a consequence of this fact people come to an agreement not to do injustice to avoid suffering it. The people that enter this agreement tend to have experienced both sides, doing injustice and receiving injustice or do not have the power to make injustices and avoid suffering them. The goal of his argument is to convince Socrates that justice is good for what it brings and not for what it is.

(ii) According to Glaucon if there is a law that makes illegal to make firewood from your neighbor’s grove, breaking this law would be unjust. This is due to the fact that we have a general agreement between all of us to follow the laws. Breaking this specific law would mean breaking the agreement. Breaking an agreement is by definition unjust therefore breaking this law is unjust. Moreover when we respecting this argument we …show more content…
The first one states that “anger sometimes makes war against the appetites” therefore this means that we carry out actions that drive our spirited part to be angry at our appetitive part (440a). As the appetite can’t be mad at itself, the only logical conclusion is to say that the spirited part is distinct from the appetitive part. On a second instance Socrates defends that the spirited part takes advice from rationality and judgment in order to designate what targets he will get mad at. This means that we judge with our rationality at what we can get mad at and what we can’t get mad at. For example if we are cold we can’t get mad at the weather but if a friend acts unjustly with us we can get mad at