Description

In Book II of the Republic Glaucon supplies us with the image of the perfectly unjust person, who is perfectly unjust but who reaps the benefits of being perfectly just. The aim of Glaucon’s thought experiment is to put pressure on the idea that the just life is inherently valuable (that is, valuable regarding of the outcomes it produces). At the end of Book VIII and in Book IX, Socrates provides us with an alternative image of the perfectly unjust person, the Tyrant. Socrates’ claims that the life of the character of the Tyrant shows that the just life is inherently valuable, contrary to what Glaucon supposes. In this paper I want you to do the following: Sketch the character of the Tyrant and explain why he is “perfectly unjust.” Consider Socrates’ argument for why the character of the Tyrant shows us that the just life is inherently valuable. Determine whether this argument is a proper response to Glaucon’s challenge in Book II. Work out the implications of Socrates’ argument: if correct, does it mean that we have reason to try to be perfectly just, even if this is an ideal? Why not be moderately just? Note: This paper gives you the opportunity to bring together some of your thoughts on the Republic. Should we strive for perfect justice (i.e., proper harmony) in ourselves? Plato thinks that we should, lest we fall into the trap of prizing pleasure, wealth, or glory too highly? At the same time Plato seems to recognize that perfect justice is an unattainable ideal (Unless, that is, you are a guardian serving in the perfectly just city. We can assume for the sake of argument that none of us qualify as one). In other words, perfect justice is something at which we should aim rather, than something that we should expect to attain. The failure of the timocrat, oligarch, democrat, and especially the tyrant, for Plato, comes in their not aiming at perfect justice – it’s what allows them to sink so low. This claim is pretty darn strong – is it reasonable or merely bold?