2.1: The Division of Goods

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 94422

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

See 357a-358d. Glaucon thinks Thrasymachus has given in too readily, and so, showing his characteristic courage, he reopens the discussion. He has Socrates consider how good things may be divided into three classes: (1) things desired for their own sake but not for their consequences, (2) things desired both for their own sake and for their consequences, and (3) things desired for their consequences but not for their own sake. What kind of good is justice? Socrates places it in (2). Most people, Glaucon says, place it in (3). So he asks Socrates if he would be willing to defend his view.

How can reopening a discussion show courage?
What is it to desire, welcome, or love something “for its own sake”? Is it simply to find the thing pleasurable, or is there more to it than this?
Do you consider justice something at all desirable for its own sake?
Consider courage by way of comparison. Plainly it is desirable for its consequences. It gives people the emotional strength to confront fears and temptations and do what needs to be done. But is it desirable for its own sake? Which is it more like: being healthy, which in addition to enabling us to do things is itself pleasant (feels good), or being immune to an antigen, desirable only to the extent that the antigen poses a threat? Besides the benefits that come from doing what needs to be done, is there a kind of satisfaction that comes simply from being courageous?