Essay Against Glaucons Speech in Platos Republic
Essay Against Glaucon’s Speech in Plato’s RepublicIn The Republic of Plato, Glaucon makes a speech about how justice is desirable only for its consequences, not for it’s own sake. His speech contradicts what Socrates says about how justice is desirable both for it’s own sake and for it’s consequences. Glaucon argues three points to prove that justice is not desirable for it’s own sake. He tries to define what justice is and it’s origins by telling the story of the state of nature and the social contract. The second point is that everyone who practices justice believes that it is only desirable for the consequences; he explains this point by telling the story of the ring of Gyges. The third point is that everyone’s belief about justice is correct, because the life of an unjust person is better than the life of a just person. He uses an example of a perfectly unjust person and a perfectly just person to help explain the third point. Glaucon does not fully define what justice is and does not succeed in trying to prove that justice is only desirable for the consequences not for it’s own sake.
Glaucon uses his speech to persuade Socrates to believe that justice is only desirable for it’s consequences and not for it’s own sake. In his first point, Glaucon tries to define what justice is and the origins of it. He tries to define justice as not doing an injustice (358 e). He then defines the origin of justice as the compact that people have made, to not perform an unjust act or to receive one (359 a). The second point is that everyone who practices justice, believes justice is only good for the consequence and not for it’s own sake. Glaucon is stating that anyone who participates in justice believes that it only is good for selfish means (359 b -359 c). He states this point by telling the story of a farmer, who finds an invisibility ring that gives him power to be unjust, and not get caught (359 d -360 d). Glaucon’s third point is that the belief in point two is correct, because the life of an unjust person is better than the life of a just person. Glaucon explains the third part by stating that someone who enjoyed life and was unjust, was able to do the fun unjust things, and that that someone who was totally just ends up a martyr and living a horrible life (360 d - 362 c).
In Glaucon’s first point he tries to state what justice is and the origins of it, to say that justice is only desirable for the consequences and not for it’s own sake. Glaucon starts out by defining justice. Glaucon states that it is natural for humans to do unjust acts. He states that it is great to do unjust acts but not so great to receive them. This is similar to if a storeowner goes into another store down the street and steals these big new televisions that the store is selling, and then in turn sells them in his store. This is good for him, because he made a profit off of televisions he did not have to pay for. But the whole point is that if then a week later he got a shipment of high quality stereos in and started to sell them, and the storeowner down the street stole his new stereos, this would not be good. His definition is similar to the saying; do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Overall, Glaucon tries to define justice as not doing an injustice. His definition of the origin of justice comes from the compact that people made so that they do not have unjust acts done to them. The compact says that it is great to do unjust acts, but not great to receive them, so people will not perform unjust acts so they don’t receive them.
In the first point Glaucon does not succeed in what he is trying to prove. He still defines Justice as not doing injustice. Glaucon is very vague on defining what justice really is, and does not succeed in defining the origins of justice. Glaucon defines justice as injustice. If one said that justice is not doing injustice, he still has not said what justice was. If our judiciary system were based upon this definition, we would have many criminals who were caught with evidence that would get out of the crime by stating that the act was a just act. Glaucon did not describe what was justice but just stated that it’s not being unjust or doing anything unjust. By this we still cannot determine what is unjust by not defining what justice is.
Glaucon also states that he was going to determine the origin of justice. Glaucon states that the origin of justice comes from the agreement that one does not do an unjust act to another, for fear he would receive the same unjust act upon him. He states that people are only just so they don’t have injustices done to them. He then states that people made a compact to not perform an unjust act and to never receive an unjust act. So, Glaucon is saying that it is great to do unjust acts, but it is not good to receive them. Therefore, people made a pact only for the reason not to have unjust acts done to them. There are other reasons to be just, other than only for personal gains. There is also the reason of being just so that society is prosperous and that being just to others for the reason of being a good moral citizen. If the entire society felt that being unjust was all right, then the society would fall into a hole of chaos. There would be no order, and people would only do what was prosperous for them and nothing would come out of the society, it would regress.
If Glaucon were reading my paper, he would object to what I said, by stating that the point still helps to argue that justice is only desirable for it’s consequences, not for it’s own sake. Even though his point is shaky and has many flaws, it still helps out the thesis. People would only be just to not have an unjust act done unto them, so they were being just for the consequences not for justice. I don’t think he could make an objection to the flaws in his point, because I don’t think that Glaucon knows what justice is.
I would object to Glaucon’s objection by stating that if all people were selfish and were just only when it was prosperous for them, that the society they lived in would fall apart. The society would be a cespool of immorality and injustice.
Even the definition of the origin of justice goes with the thesis. People made a pact to be just so nothing unjust happens to them. People started being just for the consequences not for the sake of justice. Glaucon could also say that the only reason people started being just for the consequences could also be to have a stable and orderly society, which would in turn help them out in the end.
I would object to Glaucon’s objection by stating that there is no way to say that all people would choose justice only for the consequences. There will always be that one percent that are naturally good and just. That one percent could then in turn lead some of the other ninety nine percent to living a good and just life.