FREE ESSAY ON THE REPUBLIC: DOES JUSTICE PAY?

THE REPUBLIC: DOES JUSTICE PAY?

In the Introduction of Plato's Republic, a very important theme is depicted. It is the
argument of whether it is beneficial for a person to lead a good and just existence. The
greatly argued position that justice does not pay, is argued by three men Thrasymachus,
Glaucon, and Adeimantus. By incorporating all three men into a collective effort I
believe I can give a more flattering depiction of injustice. 
First, we must explore the basis of the moral skepticism argument in The Republic, given
by Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus' view follows the disbelief in morality that was common
during the time. The principle part of his argument is, the interests of the stronger (or
ruling) party in a society are what defines justice. I believe this is true because many
societies think of justice as having to with law and order. If that is so, it is only
fair to say that since the laws are made by a ruling power, it must define justice. He
also points out the ability that rulers had to exploit justice in their own interests. I
believe the right of a ruling power is a valid argument under the pretense that following
the rules is defined by society as just.
Beyond this basic, yet essential description of moral skepticism, Thrasymachus' argument
begins to fall off. Socrates makes a few very strong refutes, which will be discussed
later, and seems to dishearten the argumentative spirit of Thrasymachus. The argument
begins to fall apart when he is forced to restate his main point. The restatement is that
"ordinary morality is simply the behavior imposed by exploiter on exploited, and thus is
'someone else's interest' " (342 e). In this version of his original point, he also
touches on a very important fact that, in everyday life, the pursuit of self-interest is
natural and just. Thrasymachus depicts this point by undeniable fact that in a
professional sense no one wants to work for free, and that they expect some benefits in
their own interest for their efforts. After showing dissatisfaction with Socrates'
refutation, Thrasymachus gives way to Glaucon who begins to argue for the benefits of
injustice in everyday life. 
Glaucon's argument begins with a question of whether the just or unjust man is happier,
and continues on a tangent from there. He states that morality is based on convenience,
and that it is natural to pursue one's own interests. He says that justice can pretty
much be summed up as splitting the difference of two evils. The first, being forced to
restrain one's self from certain interests, and the other being becoming the victim of
injustice from another person. This, to me, is the most convincing part of the entire
book, because it narrows morality down to an interpretation of the age-old Golden Rule.
That being the fact that people would rather act justly, than to have injustice inflicted
upon them. 
Glaucon then continues by sketching out two theoretical men, one perfectly unjust and the
other perfectly just. He lays out the unjust man with his basic characteristic, the
pursuit of self-interest, regardless of others. He continues by showing the benefits that
unjust man from his actions. Glaucon also depicts the just man with his only basic
characteristic, which is his conviction toward "doing right", despite the lack of
benefits which he draws from blind justice. He then tests the just man, by depriving him
of all the benefits that the injustice, including a good reputation. A very important
distinction is made by Glaucon referring to reputation, and the difference between
seeming good and doing good. He points this as the main difference between the two men,
in that an unjust man devotes much time to making himself appear just, whereas the just
man may not seem to be. 
After an adequate portrayal of the nature of justice Glaucon moves on to a powerful
analogy about a mythical item, the ring of Gyges. This so-called test puts a just and an
unjust man in a situation where there would be no consequences brought about by their
actions. He concludes that under these circumstances there would be no difference in the
course of action between the men. 
I relate to this story more than any other argument because it reflects in a way my own
personal beliefs on the subject of moral skepticism. I agree with this part because it
downs the idea of some sort of underlying moral consciousness that prevents certain
injustices no matter the circumstances. Unlike some, I believe morals are a vital
function of society, made to keep people out of a constant state of anarchy. However, it
seems they come from the external forces which make up society, and not from some kind of
universal consciousness.
Glaucon ends his argument strong by a saying the just and unjust man can share the same
standing in the eyes of the Gods; his brother Adeimantus takes over and continues this
point. He starts by talking of the only obvious benefit of justice as being eternal bliss
in the afterlife, earned through honest and just actions. However, he then points out
that in Greek religion, there was no real risk of not ending up eternally happy, no
matter your actions. As long as sacrifices and other rituals were performed one could
persuade the gods to guarantee a healthy afterlife, thus leaving virtually no
consequences for unjust behavior. Adeimantus then concludes with a reiteration or his
brother's point that without consequences justice is useless.
To this point the argument I have been developing can be boiled down to a few lines, and
before I make this a fair debate by refuting my own beliefs, I thought I would sum up the
argument for injustice as a whole. I think that the argument conceded that justice has
its benefits in matters of interaction with a group or a society. However, in an
individual sense injustice pays off better with little to no consequence, while justice
in and of itself is useless.
Socrates, at this point, has his work cut out for him as how to promote justice as a way
of life. The basis of his argument is what I see as the most persuasive part, and that is
justice is needed to hold society together. He uses many examples of professions to prove
that in a business sense; people do what they are best at, not what they will benefit
most from. This gives way to the point that people do what is in the best interest to
society, and that which benefits others most. It is a point that is portrayed in depth in
Book II, where he explains that people need justice to interact even in the most basic
society. Socrates believed that justice functions unknowingly both selfishly, so that
people can benefit from the talents of others; and unselfishly, trying share their skill
with others. Despite many solid arguments, Socrates main function in the book is not to
preach justice, yet it is to question why the majority believes so strongly in
injustice.
Although the odds are stacked against justice with three men arguing against it, Socrates
continually finds ways to raise some doubt about injustice as a way of life.
He is able to successfully refute Thrasymachus' arguments of might makes right and that
unjust men are good and sensible compared to their opposite. He does by first showing
that people in general, including the ruling class don't always know what is in their
best interest. Therefore no matter who is in power it is not always right to follow what
they say. Secondly, he crushes the weak interpretation of the unjust man by showing that
it is bad to compete with your equal, and proving that an unjust man always wants to get
the best of everyone, whereas the just man is satisfied with equality. After Thrasymachus
steps down though, Socrates does not and as I see it cannot do anything to refute the two
brothers' views on individual justice.
Overall, I think I have to stick with injustice as the most convincing side of this grand
argument. Due to strong arguments from all three skeptics about the benefits of
injustice, as opposed to the almost nonexistent downfalls, I can see no other way to go.
Socrates goes on to illustrate society, and rule by a group of completely just and
educated guardians in later books. However, it seems that without popular belief in
justice as the only way of life, injustice will always prevail. In conclusion, factoring
in modern religion and its threats of injustice leading to eternal damnation, I don't
think the debate over justice versus injustice can ever be completely resolved.