Thrasymachus is now out of the dialogue, having gracelessly told Socrates that Socrates was all along seeking to do Thrasymachus personal injury in making him look bad in the argument and that Socrates probably cheated somehow in achieving the final rebuttal. But Glaucon and Adeimantus want the conversation extended, Glaucon because he would like to accept Socrates’ argument that justice is better than injustice, but he is not yet convinced; Adeimantus because he is troubled by the efficacy of the appearance of virtue as opposed to the possession of virtue in and of itself. Adeimantus is also troubled by other aspects he wants introduced in the dialogue. In other words, Glaucon wishes to hear Socrates amplify his rebuttal of Thrasymachus, so Glaucon will recapitulate Thrasymachus’ arguments. And Adeimantus intends to break new ground in the conversation.
Socrates has said that Justice is a good, a virtue, not unlike good health and forms of human knowledge that are good in and of themselves. The attainment of the good is not consequent on the rewards (money, honor, prestige) it might entail.
But Glaucon’s recapitulation of Thrasymachus’ argument is of value, if only because it eschews the Sophist’s bombast. Here it follows:
In the old days, there was no concept of justice, no laws to fix the locus of justice. People took by force of arms whatever they could from one another, but no group of people could ally themselves in sufficient force or philosophical consensus to assure their position of power. So they were unhappy because everyone was effecting retribution of evil upon others who had instigated the use of force, violence for violence, blood feuds, the wrongs of fathers visited upon sons. So people agreed to a sort of rude law, tried to establish “right” actions and “wrong” actions. But their laws were engendered by fear and motivated by selfish ends.
Let us suppose (Glaucon continues) that each of two men possesses a magic ring that enables each man to become invisible. One of these men is a just man; the other is unjust. The men’s invisibility-at-will enables them to do whatever they want, take whatever they want, seize any opportunity at will. And given the opportunity, both men would seize it and exploit it; the unjust man will behave unjustly; the just man, given the opportunity, will also behave unjustly unless he is a simpleton. Furthermore, Socrates has argued that justice is a virtue, that it is better in and of itself than injustice, no matter the circumstances. No, says Glaucon, it is more rewarding for the unjust man, reaping the benefits of injustice, to appear to be just, thereby incurring honors and reputation consequent upon the appearance of justice.
Moreover, Adeimantus chimes in with his brother, in attempting to fix a definition of justice, we have been talking about the ideal. In mundane reality, when fathers and teachers advise sons and students to strive for justice, they are actually advising the appearance of justice. So Glaucon is correct, and Thrasymachus, in spite of his specious rhetoric, is probably correct. And even if we are reminded that we are taught that the gods themselves reward justice and punish injustice, we know from the stories the poets tell us that the gods can be bribed. Perhaps we can fool the gods with appearance as well as the most of mankind. So in order for Socrates to demonstrate that justice is finally good in and of itself, and injustice commensurately bad, we need a furtherance of that argument.
