Background
To my surprise, Glaucon suggested questions this time. When I drew the relation graph of bookⅠ, I categorized him into the same group with Socrates and even filled its block with orange-a uniform color of red for Socraties.
However, it’s he who was opposed to Socrates, and his idea was argued in three steps:
The origin of justice
In fact, people would like to practice injustice and avoid suffering injustice at first. However, it’s difficult to get away with injustice, and it’s unbearable to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation. As a consequence, all men choose justice for the sake of compromise, which is worse than the former but better than the latter.
Practicing justice against all men’s will
First, let’s imagine that if we have been given both to the just and the unjust power to do what we will, the result must be-all of us proceed along the unjust path, except for the force of law exists.
And there is a tale to express view above: a shepherd got a gold ring in the opening of the earth by accident. He found that if he turned the wallet inward, he became invisible, while outward, he reappeared. Finally, he made use of the trait to seduce the queen, slew the king and took the kingdom. The main idea is that if we had the power to practice injustice without the risk of exposed, we would be unjust for sure.
The life of the unjust is better
To make the point clearly, Glaucon classified the just and the unjust particularly. The perfect injustice is while doing the most unjust acts, people acquire the fame of justice. On the other hand, the just is under the fear for being thought to be unjust, because people don’t know whether he act this way is out of justice or just for the reputation.