The Definition Of Justice In Glaucon's Three Kinds Of Goods

1927 Words8 Pages
In an attempt to amass an overall consensus of justice being desirable as a benefit to the health of the soul, and the necessity placed on maintaining its ideals as a virtue (as expressed by Socrates to resolve Thrasymachus's definition); Glaucon extends his argument of justice to include the concept of the Three Kinds of Goods. As explained, all goods can be divided into three classes: as a mere means such as physical labor, as an end akin to joy, and as both a means and an end comparable to maintaining knowledge (book ii). Although an advocate for the belief that justice is coveted both as a means and an end, Glaucon alludes to the fact that most individuals classify justice under the first group: justice is no more than a mere means. He continues to elaborate on the idea that justice is viewed as a necessary evil, and that it is only maintained in order to evade the preeminent evil of suffering. In order to correctly place justice within the Three…show more content…
By maintaining the investigation method used to previously answer Thrasymachus’s definition of justice, Socrates approaches the complexity of questions and definitions proposed by Glaucon. He progresses with the intent of focusing on the extensive ones first, followed by the examinations of the smaller ones, and lastly comparing their answers in order to claim whether they are different or the same. Socrates begins his argument by asking whether there is a difference between the justice of a city and that of an individual, expounding on the thought that justice on a larger scale (such as that of the city), will be easier to understand for what it actually is (43). Hopeful to reach a consensus that maintains justice as interchangeable between society and an

    More about The Definition Of Justice In Glaucon's Three Kinds Of Goods

      Open Document