The concepts of justice and injustice are those issues which have always been a matter of argument for an abundance of philosophers. The most popular views on these two notions is Glaucon’s one. In spite of Socrates, he finds out that justice is quite burdensome, as he notifies that all people appreciate justice “not because we desire what comes from it, but because we welcome it for its own sake joy, for example, and all the harmless pleasures” (Plato 526). He states that those people who are considered to be just can not do it willingly. The reason for them to become just is their lack of opportunities to guarantee injustice in their lives and actions. Moreover, the majority of people who try to persuade others in the necessity of justice do not praise the concept of justice and its peculiarities. The only thing they admire is the reputation of a just and honest person. It is convenient for them to be considered just, in this case, they acquire some privileges, for example, in the public offices. It is easier for just people to marry a person he/she wants to as there is a stereotype that, as a rule, just people have happier families. Unjust people are provided a chance to act in any way they would like to. Such people are not interested in anyone who can admit them to be just. They do not need to have a reputation of a just person, and, in this way, they demonstrate their freedom. What is more, Glaucon does not find a considerable difference between a just and unjust person; he notes that “we’ll catch the just person red handed travelling the same road as the unjust”. He recommends the audience not to find reputation as a factor which can predetermine anything in one’s life. Furthermore, one of the key issues of his position is the fact that “no one, whether in poetry or in private conversations, has adequately argued that injustice is the worst thing a soul can have in it and that justice is the greatest good”. In other words, this is the proof of the fact that the author notes that people have never found injustice a problem which must be solved.
On the other hand, it can not be admitted that the opinion under analysis is faultless and irreproachable. There are no doubts about the fact that justice is not considered by all people a significant notion, but it does not mean that only unjust people are free. Just people are also free, as they have an opportunity to choose if they desire to be just or unjust. What is more, one can not help mentioning that a lot of people want to be considered just only because of the necessity to have a good reputation. An abundance of people understand that it includes some privileges, and their deeds are aimed at demonstration of justice. Glaucon’s fault is the fact that he does not envisage a probability of some just people who want to act in a certain way, and this way must comprise positive deeds only. It is an irrefutable fact that there is a quite small amount of such people, but there is no reason to state that there are no of them, as it is a mistake.
In conclusion, it is noteworthy to admit that Glaucon’s opinion has both advantages and disadvantages. In some cases, he is right but, in other ones, his point of view needs to be corrected, whereas Socrate’s opinion can be considered almost accurate.