Understanding the challenges of Glaucon and Adeimantus - Platos Republic

Glaucon 's argument that is , as to why people who practice justice practice it unwillingly (Plato II 38 . If it is correct to say that people who practice justice practice it unwillingly then the obvious problem , on the part of his interlocutor , that is Socrates , would be as to how it can be cogently explained why justice is regarded as a virtue , and the just person is regarded as virtuous . This is a legitimate problem because if a person commits acts which are just simply because he cannot do injustice without paying the

penalty then his actions do not have moral worth . The reasoning behind this is simple : it is only acts which are free which can be praiseworthy or blameworthy , moral or immoral . Finally , Glaucon 's argument points out the uselessness of justice if kept in private . Glaucon states the following

This , some would say , is strong evidence that no one is just willingly but only when compelled . No one believes justice to be a good thing when it is kept private , since whenever either person thinks he can do injustice with impunity , he does it . Indeed , all men believe that injustice is far more profitable to themselves than is justice (Plato II 39

If Glaucon 's account of the nature and source of justice is correct then the aforementioned problem must be addressed . It is important to note that Glaucon 's argument is largely built upon the concept of human nature in the negative sense that is , the view that human beings are naturally self-centered each looking after himself and his own self-interests

Adeimantus provides a rejoinder for Glaucon 's argument . Whereas Glaucon 's argument focuses on the arguments for the superiority of injustice over justice , Adeimantus ' argument focuses on the arguments that praise justice and disparage injustice...