Theory of Justice Posed by Glaucon

The excerpt we read from Plato’s Republic focused on specific dialogues between Glaucon and Socrates that took place during a much larger philosophical argument on the idea of justice that included a number of other participants. It was during this debate that Glaucon presented Socrates with an argument that offers an explanation of the essence and origin of justice. This view that Glaucon advocates asserts that it is the suffering of injustice that is bad while doing injustice is naturally good, and justice was merely a concept manufactured by society to serve as a compromise between the best and worst outcomes of this reality; everyone desires to engage in injustice without the risk of retribution, but they fear suffering at the hands of injustice with no means to avenge themselves. The implications of this theory are somewhat startling as Glaucon explains that this means people do not care for justice because it is good or a source of happiness but instead only honor it out of an extreme desire for injustice. If such an idea were to be adopted as the truth of the matter then “Strong” individuals, those who are capable of appearing to be just while in fact acting unjustly, have no incentive to act in accordance with laws created by the societal contract of justice. Consequently only the “Weak” individuals would be subject to obeying the laws as a result of being unable to successfully disguise their injustice.

Glaucon posed this theory to Socrates because it raised the question of why anyone should value justice when evidence of human nature – Glaucon references the story of the Gyges Ring – indicates that all men believe injustice to be far more profitable towards their private interests, and are not willing to act justly except when compelled by unnatural forces i.e. Laws. Socrates is challenged with making an argument that supports justice as being naturally good as opposed to injustice, and it is his response that serves as the subject matter of Plato’s Republic.

I find it interesting to note though that the theory Glaucon presented is not one that was abandoned thousands of years ago. Yes, Socrates provides a wonderful dialogue that supports the natural goodness of being Just which proved to be very influential to Western Philosophy. However, this theory that Glaucon described during the Ancient Greek era has also appeared in much more modern philosophy. German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche presented the Übermensch concept in his 1883 work “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.” This theory describes a type of individual similar to those mentioned by Glaucon that is inherently stronger, and thus can rise above and disregard societal restrictions. Another example of this concept appears throughout the 1866 classic novel “Crime and Punishment” by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

The question I personally raise to the commenters is this: which side do you find yourself more aligned with (Glaucon’s/Nietzsche’s, Socrates’/Plato’s, or neither) and why? I found Socrates’ stance agreeable and in some ways it even seemed to align with the moral concepts of modern major religions i.e. the Christian view that everyone has a determined role & Socrates' individual roles in the ideal city. Putting my views on religion aside though, I consider Nietzsche’s theory to be applicable in a reality without some higher moral power governing nature; if there is no god why does society remain content to behave in a manner that follows religious-cultural standards?