The Search for Justice Why would a person make a statement that he does do not believe in? To see how others rebut your statement. This is the approach Glaucon employs. After listening to Thrasymachus Glaucon is not satisfied with the argument on either side of the true definition of justice.
Tharsymachus and Polymarchus have departed from the discussion and Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus are left to continue the debate. The dialogue of the second book is more an intellectual excercise than the previous book. Glaucon decides to takes a postion contrary to his own for the sake of argument and is eager to hear Socrates demonstrate his reactions on justice by opposing Socrates. Glaucon wants to hear anyone defend justice the way he wants hoping that they might arrive at a more satisfying conclusion that justice is better than injustice. There are three assessments that reflect upon Glaucon's position of what good justice is, in Book II of the "Republic".
First I will discuss Glaucon's account of the origin of justice within the state, Second I will discuss Glaucon's argument why people practice justice unwillingly, next I will discuss that the life of the unjust person is better that than of the just person, and finally critically evaluate the standpoint Glaucon presents.
First, Glaucon has a disposition on the origin of justice within the state. According to Glaucon, "to do injustice is naturally good and to suffer injustice bad and there are people incapable of doing injustice that have experienced both".1 Glaucon's assertion that justice is a legally enforced compromise between doing injustice to others and having injustice done to oneself. So beneficially there becomes an agreement neither to do injustice nor suffer it. Given complete freedom to act as we see fit, we act for our...