Morality & Justice

Alexia Ragsac

February 13, 2013

Morality & Justice

Essay: Prompt #1

        In this essay, I will describe and critically assess Glaucon’s argument for the view that ‘morality is only ever practiced reluctantly, by people who lack the ability to do wrong and get away with it’. Someone once said, “Must someone, some unseen thing, declare what is right for it to be right? I believe that my own morality - which answers only to my heart - is more sure and true than the morality of those who do right only because they fear retribution” (Sanderson). This quote relates perfectly to Glaucon’s argument because throughout the books, every philosopher has a different definition of justice and how it should be viewed as. Glaucon’s argument fairly has the same concept like that of Thrasymachus’ method; therefore, Glaucon goes on an investigation in order to reveal to people that the actions of an unjust man is better than actions of a just man. Both Glaucon and Thrasymachus are convinced of this idea, and strongly believe in the philosophy teachings of injustice. Throughout the paper, I will be going in depth and analyze Glaucon’s argument clearly so that the reader can understand my point of view and thoughts about this idea of injustice.

        As Glaucon presents his speech, the idea of injustice is the moral that he centers his speech around. During his speech, Glaucon says. “By nature, they say, to commit injustice is a good and to suffer it is an evil, but that the excess of evil in being wronged is greater than the excess of good in doing wrong. So that when men do wrong and are wronged by one another and taste of both, those who lack the power to avoid the one and take the other determine that it is for their profit to make a compact with one another neither to commit nor to suffer injustice; and this is the beginning of legislation and of covenants between men, and that they name the commandment of the law and the lawful and just, and that is the genesis and essential nature of justice-a compromise between the best, to do what is wrong with impunity, and the worst, which is to be wronged and be impotent to get one’s revenge.” This is significant in the argument of injustice because of the point that Glaucon makes in it. Glaucon makes it clear that society does not enter into the agreement that gives rise to justice willingly and that this situation is not regarded as the best. He regards justice as a compromise between what is most desirable to the individual, who commits crimes, and what is the most undesirable for the individual, who is in distress. He further concludes that people accept justice because of the idea of social contract that is to the benefit of everyone in the society.

Glaucon shows that the best explanation of the origin and acceptance of morality is that we should not injure eithers by any means of actions or words, nor shall we by injured by them. Glaucon explains his definition of morality well by representing a social contract explanation for the nature of justice. Most men would want to be able to commit injustice actions against others without fear of retaliation, and what they most want to avoid is being treated unjustly by others without being able to do injustice in return. (unknown)

        Glaucon tells the story about the ring of Gyges in order to support his claims that no one will willingly be a follower of justice and that anyone who was free would perform an action of injustice. In this tale, Gyges, a shepherd, finds a magical ring of invisibility within a strange bronze horse that has been exposed by an earthquake. Using the power of the ring, he seduces the queen; therefore, out of jealousy, murders the king and takes control of the kingdom. This results into Glaucon’s conclusion that if identical rings were given to a moral man and an immoral man, then both men would act immorally, or unjustly. This proves his argument that morality is only ever practiced reluctantly by people who lack the ability to do wrong and get away with it. By nature, humanity desires more than how they behave in reality. This is significant because it proves how humanity would truly act if never being caught was an option. Justice becomes the conventional result of the laws and covenants that men make in order to avoid such extremes. Men decide that it is in their interests to submit themselves to the convention of justice by being unable to commit injustice with liberty, while fearing becoming victims themselves. (LaBossiere)

        At the end of his speech, Glaucon finishes his argument by showing the details of the challenge. In the challenge, the acts of an unjust man are contrasted with the acts of a just man. To compare, an unjust man must be the pinnacle of injustice and must have the qualities necessary for him to carry out his transgressions successfully and secretly. While the just man, is stripped of everything but his justice and his life. He starts to become ostracized from society due to his reputation for being immoral, even though he was a man of true character and heart. As Glaucon points out, the just man must be appropriately tested to see if he chooses to act justly just because the sake of justice or because of the sake of the reputation and the name that goes with it. (LaBossiere)