plato the republic:books 2-4
...le have good reason to behave unjustly because it is known that the life of an unjust person is better than that of a just person. Glaucon starts his argument for injustice by first expressing his definition of justice. Glaucon states that it is far worse to be the victim of injustice than to be the doer of injustice, hence the development of laws and covenants which was an agreement that no one would be involved with or the victim of injustice. Glaucon suggests that the creation of these laws and covenants is the heart and basis of justice. Glaucon believes that justice is seen as a intermediate of the laws and covenants, suggesting that justice at it’s best is being unjust and receiving no punishment and at it’s worst is having fallen victim to injustice without the benefit of revenge. Therefore, Glaucon believes that people do not value justice because it is good but because they are too weak to be unjust to others without suffering retribution. Adeimantus then challenges Socrates to describe what justice and injustice is of it’s own self. Adeimantus restricts Socrates from using or mentioning anything regarding reputations, honors, and rewards because these will help to bias the audience towards agreeing that it is better to be just. Adeimantus also tells Socrates to avoid any theoretical argument about justice being stronger than injustice, he instead wants Socrates to show what effect justice and injustice has on the person...