Book 2

Although Socrates thinks that the discussion is over, Glaucon continues it, asking Socrates in
which class of things he would place justice: things we choose to have for their own sake, for
their sake and the sake of their consequences, or for the sake of their consequences only. To this,
Socrates answers that justice is in the most beautiful class of all: the class of things we choose to
have for their own sake and for the sake of their consequences.

Topic Tracking: Justice 7

To this, Glaucon answers that most people think otherwise and would classify justice with "the
arduous things that ought to be shunned for themselves but pursued for profit and a reputation
based on appearance." Book 2, pg. 31, line 358 He also says that he isn't impressed by the
discussion. He wants to know what justice and injustice are, and what power they each have by
themselves in the soul. Thus, he proposes to first present the popular view of the nature and
origin of justice, then show that all who practice it do so unwillingly, and do so because they
think of it as a necessity and not a good. Finally, he says that he will argue that this attitude is
reasonable since people generally think that the unjust life is better than the just life. He says he
does not believe in these views; the reason he is doing this is because he would like to hear
justice defended and believes that Socrates can do that better than anybody else.

With this in mind, he begins by saying that people believe that injustice is good to inflict but bad
to suffer. Through experience, people determine that the negative effects of suffering it are
greater than the positive effects of inflicting it, and therefore they make a pact to stop inflicting
or suffering it. As a result, they made laws and called whatever the laws dictated justice. This, he
believes, is the essence and origin of justice, which ended up being a midway or compromise,
and is thus not cherished as a good but honored out of inability to do wrong. The result is that a
real unjust man would never make a pact with anyone because he wouldn't be able to trust him or
her.

He then continues, intending to prove that people are only just because they have to be. To do
this, he tells the story of a shepherd who once served a king. One day, when an earthquake
occurred, a chasm was opened where he was herding sheep, and he went into it and found a
bronze horse with windows in it. He looked in and found the body of a man, wearing a golden
ring. He took the ring and left. Later, when he was in a meeting with fellow shepherds, he
happened to turn the setting of the ring toward him. Suddenly, he became invisible, and the
others started to speak of him as if he wasn't there. After experimenting further, he came to the
realization that the ring could make him invisible at will. Thus, he used it to become messenger
to the king, seduce the queen, murder the king, and then take the throne. Glaucon says that
should there be two rings like this, one given to a just man and one to an unjust man, the just
man would not have the will to resist the opportunities, and thus, nobody is willingly just.
Furthermore, he says that "justice is practiced only under compulsion, as someone else's good -
not our own." Book 2, pg. 33, line 360c

Topic Tracking: Justice 8

The conversation then moves on to a discussion that the whole hypothesis is based on the
rewards of appearance and a good reputation, whereas the gods reward those who are truly just
and punish those who are unjust. However, it is generally believed that the gods often grant
misfortune and evil lives to good men while evil men are happy and successful. Furthermore,
priests and soothsayers charge large fees for making others' lives better, erasing sins, and making
enemies suffer, and only the rich can afford these people. With stories like these floating around,
it is difficult to remain just, especially when perceived as unjust. Therefore, people go about
attempting to appear just, regardless of what they truly are.

However, it is difficult to appear just. People realize this and, in order to cover their true selves
and intentions, form gangs and political societies. They can also have professors teach them
techniques for swaying a jury and speaking persuasively. In the end, they will take everything
they want. When told that the gods cannot be fooled, they simply answer that there is no proof
that such gods exist and so they should not be concerned with the gods. However, should they
exist, they can be persuaded to forgive them through feasts and offerings, according to hearsay
and the poets, the same people who say that the gods exist. Thus, either way, divine punishment
is not something they should be worrying about.

Thus, Adeimantus concludes, there is absolutely no reason to prefer justice to injustice. He then
asks Socrates what strategy he would use to convince a man who had all the power and means to
be unjust, to respect justice. He also asks Socrates to show what good justice does to its
possessor, and what evil injustice does to him or her.

Topic Tracking: Justice 9

To this, Socrates replies that although it will be a very difficult task, he is willing to try. He
begins by creating the following scenario for his audience and asking them if it is true: if a man
with poor eyes was asked to read something small at a distance, and he noticed it written larger
somewhere else, would he not read the larger one first and then examine the smaller one to see if
it was the same? His audience agrees that it is true. Similarly, he says that it would make
defining justice and defending it easier if they examine justice on a larger scale, and then in the
individual. He then recommends that they examine justice in the state first, by watching a city
coming into being and identifying justice and injustice as they accordingly come into being.

Topic Tracking: Justice 10

Primarily, they agree that a city comes into being because individuals are not self-sufficient.
Thus, many people come together to provide for each other, creating a settlement called a city.
With this in mind, it can be inferred that people share their products with others because they
think such an action is for their own good. Considering just the necessities, a city would be
comprised of a farmer for food, a carpenter for shelter and a weaver for clothes. Then they add a
few other craftsmen, such as a shoemaker, to help provide for the needs of the body. Thus, the
absolutely necessary city will consist of four or five people, where each person has a certain skill
and provides the fruits of that skill to everybody in the city. However, he must tend to his skill all
of the time, and thus there must be other people in the city to make the tools that he needs, such
as a plow for the farmer, and shepherds to provide wool for the weaver. Also, it will be
impossible to found this city in a place where it doesn't need imports, therefore servants are
needed to bring in the imports. However, they must have something to trade them for. With this
in mind, the city must produce surpluses to sell to other cities. Thus trade comes into existence.
People within the city will also start trading, and a marketplace with currency will be built.
However, the skilled workers must not waste their time, and therefore retailers are needed, as are
wage-earners (slaves).

However, the source of injustice cannot be found. Therefore, Socrates goes on to describe what
the people will have - the basics of food and clothing. Glaucon stops him and says he is creating
a city for pigs, with the bare necessities and no luxuries. Socrates agrees and says that Glaucon is
right in assuming that the bare necessities will not be enough for some people. He adds luxuries,
such as couches, paintings and the like. Due to this, the city will need to expand, and
hairdressers, doctors and teachers, as well as other professionals, will come into existence.
Because of this expansion, the city will have to gain land from its neighbors and will soon be at
war. Thus, the origin of war is found: the desire for possessions.

This means that the city will need an army, since it has already been established that each man is
only good at one skill, and warfare is a skill. Through examining the nature of a dog, hostile to
strangers, and loving to people they know, they realize that dogs judge things as hostile or
friendly only through knowledge and ignorance. Thus, they must love knowledge. Also, since
dogs are the best guardians of people they love, the guardians of the city must also love
knowledge, and people who love knowledge are philosophers. Therefore, "to become a good
guardian, a man must be by nature fast, strong, and a spirited philosopher." Book 2, pg. 48, line
376e After establishing what the guardian's basic character must be like, Socrates and his
companions go on to discuss the nature of the upbringing and education of the guardian, as this
may help them find the roots of justice and injustice. They come up with the time-tested formula:
physical training for the body and poetry for the soul. However, since children are
impressionable and many stories are false, the stories that are told to these children must be
supervised. Also supervised must be the storytellers. In particular, no stories must be told where
the gods are depicted poorly, or heroes are misrepresented. Also, guardians must never be told
that gods fight with each other, as this may induce fighting between themselves. Thus, the first
stories the guardians hear must be well composed for teaching excellence.

Topic Tracking: Excellence 3

As for the gods, they must always be represented as their true selves, and since they are truly
good, that is how they must be depicted. Since good things cannot be harmful, gods do no harm.
Since they do no harm, they could not possibly do any evil, and what does no evil could not
possibly be the cause of any evil. Therefore, gods are the cause of what is good, not what is evil.
However, since evil exists, it has to have another cause. With this is mind, no ill-spoken words
about the gods will be tolerated in the city. Should poets speak about gods punishing people, they
must justify the actions of the gods, and show that the people deserved it. This leads to the first
law of the city: "God is the cause only of good." Book 2, pg. 52, line 380c

Furthermore, since gods are the ultimate in beauty and perfection, they would never change
themselves into something else, since everything else is worse than they are. Also, since they are
the most powerful, nothing else can change them. These two facts lead to the conclusion that
gods never change shape or form. Therefore, any poet who says they do must be lying. Also,
since gods are all-knowing, they do not need to create fiction about the past in order to achieve
an end; therefore, gods would never lie. This leads to the second law of the city: "the gods shall
not be misrepresented as sorcerers who change their shapes or as liars who mislead us in word or
deed." Book 2, pg. 54, line 383