Glaucon's Comparison On Virtue And Socrates

At the start of book two Glaucon is not satisfied with Socrates conclusion on their discussion of justice, he states that he has certainly not succeeded in persuading him. Glaucon asks Socrates how he would arrange goods. Before Socrates can respond he gives his views on how they are divided. Glaucon explains that all goods can be divided into three classes: things that we desire only for their outcome/what we get out of them, things that we desire only for their own sake, and things we desire both for their own sake and what we get from them, such as knowledge, sight, and health. Glaucon wanted Socrates to prove that justice is not only desirable, but that it belongs to the highest class of desirable things: those desired both for their own

He explains a just man is given a ring to make him invisible and once the man has the ring he is free to act as unjust as he wants with no fear of the punishments. He claims that even the most just man would behave unjustly if he was in possession of this ring. This proves that people only act just because they are afraid of the punishments for injustice. In order to protect themselves people made a social contract to be just. Glaucon also proves that it is rational for people to prefer to be unjust rather than just. The unjust man will always have an advantage because he is willing to do whatever it takes, whereas the just man will not. He argues that an unjust life is more pleasant than a perfectly just life, the unjust man is the happier man. Adeimantus steps in to strengthen this argument that Glaucon made. He says that people only praise justice for the rewards and results of it, for the sake of their character and reputation. He asks Socrates to prove that justice is desirable without these external results, he wants him to prove that its desirable for its own sake. (367b). In discussing this he imagines a city to make it easier to think about justice vs.