Difference Between Socrates And Glaucon

The discussion between Socrates and Glaucon in the story of the ring of Gyges is a response to a sophist named Thrasymachus’ idea of Justice in book one of The Republic. He made three central claims about justice: Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger. Justice is obedience to laws. Justice is nothing but the advantage of another. Thrasymachus’ “won” this argument against Socrates; however, Glaucon was not satisfied with these claims. The main theory of Glaucon in the ring of Gyges is that no man, regardless of how virtuous he is, is able to resist the temptation of doing what he pleases with the power of invisibility granted by the ring. So why do people in society choose to do good more than to do evil? It is because it is in
Not doing evil is merely a compromise because doing evil has negative consequences. However, if there were no negative consequences, or any consequences at all for that matter, there would be nothing to compromise. Glaucon claims that if people were given the opportunity to do whatever they want, just or unjust, they will both chose the same course of action: doing evil. This is because it is inherently more pleasurable to do something bad than it is to do something good. This leads me to believe that justice and doing good is directly derived from consequence. Does justice naturally exist or is “nurtured” or created by living in a society with laws, customs, statuses etc.? Glaucon also considers the possibility of someone rejecting the rings and its power involved. He concluded that although “they would praise him to one another’s faces”, he would be thought of by bystanders to be a fool. I would disagree with Glaucon that humans are inherently apt to do evil. I would say that a natural occurrence of humans, but an occurrence shaped by materialistic economies. It is not natural for humans to be the best of all men and to constantly outdo each other; it is an effect of