Plato's Republic focuses upon some of the most common questions in philosophy. Amongst these weighty questions, Republic tries to define justice and its role in the world. Plato maintains that justice is possible for its own sake. Glaucon challenges Socrates to prove that justice is good for its own sake, and issues "Glaucon's challenge." Certain questions surround this passage. Does Glaucon really ask Socrates to show that justice is good for its own sake or does he ask Socrates to show that justice is the most important virtue (as Socrates later says it is)? Which of these does Socrates really try to show? And does he succeed in showing either or both? I feel that Glaucon's challenge is truly trying to establish that justice is the most important virtue. Socrates tries showing that justice is good for its own sake, but he ends up explaining that justice is the most important virtue. Finally, I feel that Socrates has succeeded in answering both questions, although certain consideration must be taken to accept his explanation.
The first step is to explain the challenge. The conditions of "Glaucon's challenge" are that Socrates is to prove that justice is good for its own sake by showing the benefits of being just and the disadvantages of being unjust, under the condition that the just person suffers the consequences of being unjust and that the unjust person shall enjoy all of the advantages of the just person.
But this isn't a very good question to ask if you want to know if something is good for its own sake. The problem here is that what is really being asked is, "Socrates, just how much agony you would suffer as a just man before you decided it wasn't worth it?" Being a hypothetical statement, Socrates can easily respond by saying that he would suffer any injustices to be just (and he is later executed for his beliefs). What is really going on is that Glaucon is still sticking to the realm of the tangible. Glaucon cannot see beyond the physical world; he thinks of all sorts of physical punishments that could be inflicted upon someone, and wants to know if those physical pains would be worth the innate goodness of justice. Glaucon's challenge does not allow Socrates to explain the idea of JIGFIOS[1] because Glaucon is still asking about consequences.
What would be a better challenge? A much better question would be, "Pretend that no one really cared much about anything. If you took the trouble to act just, and received absolutely no benefits from it, and other people had a slightly easier life by acting unjustly, would there be any merit in being just?" In other words, let justice have no consequences except its innate goodness, and provide positive, non-innate consequences to unjustness. Most questions of this sort either strip both justice and injustice of all consequences, or find some way to punish the just person while rewarding the unjust person. The questions are either, "pretend neither justice nor unjustness have any consequences, which would be better?" or Glaucon's challenge of "switch the consequences of justice and unjustness." However, by stripping justice of its consequences and giving positive consequences to unjustness, we are more able to see the innate goodness in justice, especially compared to the potential positive consequences of unjustness. But this question has difficulties as well. A society in which there are no consequences for "unjust" actions really has no justice or injustice in it at all.[2]
Why is this? Hume states that "it is only from the selfishness and confined generosity of men, along with the scanty provision nature has made for his wants, that justice derives its origin."[3] This is in line with what Glaucon and his friends seem to be saying, and it is the popular conception of humanity. Hume feels that if everyone acted out of kindness and concern for others, that laws would not be necessary. This idea makes much sense. The logical extension to this is that in such a society, the ideas of justice or injustice would not exist; everyone would act in a "just" manner, but there would be no comparison. Injustice cannot exist in such a world. But, if someone in this world were to act unjustly, there would be no way to describe it or to provide consequences for that person's injustice.
Glaucon's challenge certainly does not ask Socrates to show that JIGFIOS. He is asking something different altogether. Instead, he winds up asking if justice is the most important virtue. How is this? Glaucon's list of potential negative consequences to justice is very lengthy. Socrates states that he would rather choose shame, poverty, discomfort and death before he acted unjustly. There is considerable justice in honor, the ability to provide necessities and comfort, and to survive. By posing this question, Glaucon is asking Socrates, "would you prefer to be just or to be virtuous in every way but justice?" Glaucon is not merely asking Socrates to show that justice is the most important virtue, but that it is more important than all of the other virtues combined. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no way of asking "is justice good for its own sake?" without asking that question, and that question only.
Unfortunately, Socrates has made the mistake of answering Glaucon's faulty question. When he mentions that it is better to suffer unjustness than to be unjust, he seems to be saying that JIGFIOS. But he is not. Glaucon's challenge is taken to be this question, even though it isn't.
So, while Socrates thinks he is answering the question of "is justice good for its own sake," he ends up providing a very eloquent defense of the idea that justice is the most important virtue. In fact, Socrates explicitly says that justice is the most important virtue. Is Glaucon's faulty challenge merely a double agent, planted to challenge Socrates, so that Socrates may say JITMIV, while pretending to say JIGFIOS? It's quite possibly, knowing Plato (we must remember, we are reading Plato's account of things, not a court reporter's transcription of the dialogs).
To answer this question, I feel that a tangent is necessary. Throughout the Platonic dialogs, the conversations often seem forced, to say the least. Socrates faces a series of "yes-men" throughout the Republic. For instance, Glaucon happens to be his friend, and claims to simply be playing devil's advocate. Why is Socrates able to win his arguments so easily, so often? Why do people quickly cave in to his words? Dramatic license. I feel that the Platonic Dialogs are a fine piece of propaganda. Socrates was interesting to Greeks, because he was controversial. How else to spread your ideas than to publish humorous (somewhat) mini-dramas that advance your ideas? Plato couldn't resist.
The Platonic Dialogs are obviously leveled down in order to receive public acceptance.[4] Socrates is Plato's puppet. What Plato wants, Socrates does. And this, I feel is the explanation behind Glaucon's faulty challenge and Socrates' "right answer/wrong question/right answer to the question that was really asked but not thought to be asked for" response. It is my opinion that Glaucon's faulty challenge is a device on Plato's part to be able to ask is JIGFIOS while making the idea clear to the layman. And so Socrates ends up pretending that his answer to JITMIV is an answer to JIGFIOS, and then pretends to also sneak in an answer to the "unasked" question of whether or not JITMIV. Indeed, when read literally, Socrates does an admirable job of answering Glaucon's challenge.
A facet of this argument, is whether or not it is possible for something to be good for its own sake. If I were to drink a can of soda because it feels nice and bubbly in my stomach, we wouldn't say that the soda was good for its own sake; no, we conclude that I drank it for its consequences. In fact, anytime I say that use the phrase "I did X because of Y" or "I did X for the sake of Y" my audience (rightfully so) will recognize that I did X because I wanted Y to happen. Do we make a special exception in this mode of thought for certain intangible Xs, and allow them to have a certain class of Ys that are merely the same as the Xs? Socrates seems to think that this is acceptable. Socrates, when caught between consistency and absurdity tends to choose consistency. I think that this is the case here. Is justice the consequence of justice? Socrates certainly thinks so.
To understand how Socrates also answers the question of "is JIGFIOS," it is important to understand Socrates' definition of justice, and his manner of arriving at this definition. Socrates uses the analogy of a city to show justice in the individual. In the beginning, this city is small and moderate. As the city grows larger and its tastes become more luxurious, more internal control is needed to protect the property rights of individuals and an army is needed both to protect the city from jealous neighbors and to acquire the resources necessary to allow the city to grow further. In this large city, the city is unable to function properly unless the various segments of the population work in harmony; the lower class provides the labor, the middle class is formed by the militia, who in turn serve the rulers. This classes are determined by the type of metal that each person contains in their soul. Socrates makes the comparison between the city and a painting. It is better for each part of the city to work well with each other than for each part to work best on its own.
Socrates translates this to the individual by comparing the lower class to the appetites, the middle class to the will, and the upper class to the person's power of reason. Reason makes the decisions. Sometimes, however, the unthinking appetites desire something that would be bad for the person. So the will steps in to enforce the rules that the reason has imposed. When understood in this manner, Socrates' analogy seems apt.
This scenario can be viewed in two different ways. Although the two views seem different at first, they are both synonymous arguments. One view refers back to our previous semantic discussion. Socrates' justice is equated with harmony, and so the end result of justice is justice itself. Justice is certainly the consequence of justice. And, in that sense, Socrates does indeed prove that justice is good for its own sake.
The other view, is that Socrates has shown that JIGFIOS by virtue of the idea of "the way things should be." Socrates is continually reinforcing the idea that there are particular concepts of "the way things should be." Plato calls these concepts the "Forms." Under the Forms system, there is a metaverse consisting of various Forms that act as templates for the physical manifestations of these ideas. The chief of all Forms is Truth, and it is represented by the Sun. In this metaverse, things are well ordered. The Forms act as part of a jigsaw puzzle, each having their own place and worthless without the others. Plato uses the Forms to show that there is a definite reality beyond perception. Because of the Platonic forms system, Socrates says that there is a particular way in which things should work. By acting justly (in the Socratic sense), people fulfill their purpose. Because Socrates feels that the ultimate goal of any system is to act in harmony with the rest of the universe (which Socrates calls "justice"), justice is indeed good for its own sake. And this is a conceptual extension of the semantic argument.
I think that Republic is a brilliant work, for all of its flaws. It is extremely open to interpretation, is vague at some points, laughable at others, witty, consistent to absurdity throughout, and easily criticized. Herein lies the brilliance. Sometimes I get the impression that the Platonic dialogs are really a hoax, to make the reasoning process so complicated that the layman becomes decidedly anti-rationalist (the Sherlock Holmes mysteries were really anti-thinking satire). Was Plato really an ancient Sir Arthur Conan Doyle? Is Socrates really Sherlock Holmes' ancestor? Many people feel that Plato was really a skeptic. This may be so. This passage in Republic is incredible complicated, despite its simple language. If one were to take this passage at face value, it is likely that they would believe that Glaucon's challenge truly does ask if JIGFIOS, and that this is the question that Socrates responds to, and is able to do so effectively. It may be that we have put too much interpretation into Plato (as Robert Frost once accused his critics of), and that he was a simple, common sense philosopher. But I doubt this.
[1] I find that in some places, it is more appropriate to abbreviate Justice is the Most Important Virtue to JITMIV and Justice is Good for its Own sake to JIGFIOS In other places, however, I feel that the full phrases work better.
[2] Hume, Treatise of Human Nature, Bk. II, Pt. II, Sec. II
[3] Hume, Treatise of Human Nature, Bk. II, Pt. II, Sec. II
[4] The idea of leveling down is from Heidegger, although I can't remember which text for the life of me.
I have loved working with computers since I was a kid. I specialized in software development, but I also do a lot of systems administration and some network engineering. Currently, my development interests are in C#, parallel processing, and exploring business usage of dynamic and functional languages. In addition to my day job, I write for TechRepublic, primarily in the "Programming and Development" area, and ForMortals. I am currently (when time permits) working on a book that aims to teach new developers everything about how to write software, other than how to program in and of itself. In addition, I do a bit of software development under the banner of my own company, Titanium Crowbar Industries
I love learning about history and philosophy (I doubled majored in those subjects in college) as well. The essays on this site regarding those topics were all written by me in college and high school. I also am extremely interested in physical fitness, and devote a substantial amount of my time to weight lifting. I am currently focusing on lifting heavy weights and I have participated in a few powerlifting meets. Currently, my non-technical readings have focused on various religious ideas and fitness. I am a big fan of Phillip K. Dick and Frank Herbert, and both of those authors have shaped my worldview greatly.
You can also find me on Facebook.