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 m...
