Introduction:
In this paper, I will argue that Plato’s reply to Glaucon’s first objection, that justice is no more than a compromise is not a valid statement in the following three points. First, I will briefly explain the objection of Glaucon, that justice is no more than a compromise. Secondly, I will explain Plato’s reply to Glaucon’s first objection. Next, I will show the weaknesses on Plato’s claim based on one of the three parts of soul that he stands, desire. Thirdly, I will convince that Plato’s view of justice is indeed too narrow since his definition of justice is only limited to human beings. Finally, I will argue on Plato’s idea of rule of reason would lead to result of no more internal conflict.

In this paragraph, I am going to state about Glaucon’s objection that justice is no more than a compromise and briefly explain Plato’s reply on Glaucon’s objection. The statement of “justice is no more than a compromise” comes from Glaucon’s second class of good: good that “are onerous but beneficial to us, and we wouldn’t choose them for their own sakes, but for the sake of the rewards and other things that come from them” [357C]. This illustrates the idea that people might do “just” things (according to the mainstream of that time, law, conventions) while they have outweigh the consequence of doing the “unjust” thing. Which Glaucon concludes that it is just a compromise of being just instead of its initial goal was to be just. People could act unjustly if they could accept or willing to take the consequence of being unjust according to Glaucon’s view. Plato’s view was different than Glaucon’s view. He claimed that just would make people fruitful and happy, and unjust would harm people [367D]. And in order to explain that, he raise up the idea that there are three parts in a soul, which is desire, spirit and reason [436A]. He claims that when there is an internal conflict between what we want to do and is it moral to do. If three parts of soul is in a “friendship” status [589A], then people’s desire would be curbed by reasons. Which people would act morally, and internal conflict does not exist anymore, thus just making people happy and unjust people will be unhappy due to conflict between three parts of soul. Therefore Plato claims that only reason can lead to resolution of conflict.

Plato stated that the soul consists of three parts that are distinct from each other but work together and has a “friendship” between them in achieving justice. The three parts are reason, the spirited part of the soul and desire. I disagree that desire itself is a distinct separate part that makes up the soul; instead I would phrase it as “a product of reasoning”. Plato expressed that reason is like the ruler of the other 2 parts, which is indeed true as reason is the core of many things. Desire arises from our reasoning, but it is not a distinct component that should be separated and entitled as if it is an independent part of the soul. Taking the example of the desire to purchase an expensive Chanel handbag, this desire is derived from our reasoning as we might think “I’ve earned bonus money this month from work so it is reasonable to reward myself with a new Chanel handbag” or it could be “All my friends and peers own the new Chanel handbag, if I didn’t have one I would not fit in.”. All these reasons are causes to our arising desires and without reasoning it is impossible to desire of something. Therefore, I would conclude that desire and reasoning have an interdependent relationship with each other, more than like separate entities that contribute to the functioning or make up of the soul as Plato states in his reply to Glaucon.

In this paragraph, I am going to object that justice is a human good as proposed by Plato. Plato attempted to come up with a universal set of ideas to describe justice that is applicable to all human beings, of which he eventually proposed that there are three parts to the soul and when there is no inner conflict between them, a person is just and thus happy. From long ago, Greeks have claimed that only human beings can think, and other living organisms such as animals cannot do so as they did not have sufficient scientific knowledge or technology at that time. I believe that Plato is hugely influenced by his culture as he is a Greek and that he subconsciously only included human beings when coming up with the concept of justice. Is killing a dog a justified, moral act? How about cutting down a tree? Even though one might argue that those are acts carried out by humans as well, but the fact that I want to highlight is that justice includes more than just human beings. In the world of nature, animals often prey on and consume each other in order to survive. This act of murdering other living organisms for food is always considered as normal and just, we, human beings even name it as a “food chain’’ as if it’s nothing wrong. Conversely in the human world, murdering is considered as unjust and immoral, but ironically we try to justify and rationalize the same behavior when it is an animal that commits it and even call it as “nature”. Murder is nature for animals, but is unjust for human beings – so who it is that has the right to adjust the definition of justice if it’s so subjective? Plato’s definition of justice doesn’t seem to satisfy or cover such aspects and is highly focused on merely human beings and their activity. For me, justice is a set of rules that the world follows, for all living organisms and every being in the world. Also, Plato’s definition of justice is colored and biased with the culture he grew up in. He excludes other living beings other than human beings in his definition of justice, and also makes many references the Greek culture since he is a Greek. However, for people that lives in other countries and has different sets of values like Confucianism, is Plato’s idea of justice thus applicable to them as well? From the very starting point where Plato neglected other living beings in the world whilst defining Justice, there are several biases and errors that seem to have distorted the objectivity and universality of his definition. I wouldn’t entirely disagree with all parts of his definition, but I don’t think that his definition is applicable to all cases in the world and there are certain things he seemed to have left out.

Some of Plato’s claims can be seen in another way and there seems to be holes and incompleteness in the moral rules that he said is universally applicable. Plato claims that when reasoning is in charge, the soul will never experience inner conflict between parts of the soul, and a person will, thus, be just and happy. However, there is a very simple example to demonstrate how reasoning can actually lead to more moral obstacles. When an employee got promoted in a company, and is rational enough to reason that if he is promoted, then fewer resources such as money, attention is given to another employee. This might have different impacts and consequences on another employee, it might cause them to live a poorer life and get less help. In this case, extended reasoning has in fact caused more moral obstacles, if we got promoted then another person might suffer – then what is the right thing to do? Should the employee give up the promotion in order not to affect another person? Or if he/she is capable to rationalize to a further extent, he/she might find out more impacts they can possibly bring if they chose an option over another. A different choice will just simply lead to other consequences, the smallest act could possibly cause negative effects on others which we might not be conscious of. The existing common moral values don’t seem to be sufficient in solving all sorts of universal situations that involve moral and justice issues, and also seemed to have caused more inner conflict in the soul in this case. Thus, I think that Plato’s idea on reasoning and justice don’t seem to be broad and universal enough to cover the extent of all issues, and reasoning is capable to give rise to inner conflict to the soul. Plato’s claim that a person will be happy and just because of the rule of reason seems to be too hasty and vague and there are incomplete holes in his claim where I could pinpoint.

To conclude, I have argued that the concept Plato’s reply on Glaucon’s objection, that justice is no more than a compromise is misled. His stands for reason ruling the other two parts of soul would lead people act morally thus acting just was flawed as well. The deep down value of moral is clashing with the fundamentals of reason is shown on the above example as well.

Word Count: 1533
Bibliography:

Grube, G.M.A, trans. Plato Republic. Ed. C.D.C Reeve. United States of America: Hackett,Inc, 1992. Print.