All chapters

Dialogues · Chapter

Book II explained

Glaucon and Adeimantus challenge Socrates to defend justice for its own sake, not for its rewards or reputation.

What happens

Glaucon and Adeimantus challenge Socrates to defend justice for its own sake, not for its rewards or reputation. They present the common view that justice is a necessary compromise, illustrated by the myth of Gyges' ring, and demand that Socrates prove justice is inherently good for the soul regardless of appearances.

Themes in this chapter

  • Justice and Injustice

    Central theme: Glaucon and Adeimantus demand a defense of justice for its own sake, not for its external rewards.

  • Education and Virtue

    The dialogue examines how young people are influenced by societal teachings about virtue and vice.

  • Law, Custom, and Legislation

    Justice is described as a compromise enforced by law, arising from the inability to do injustice with impunity.

Characters to notice

  • Glaucon

    Challenges Socrates to defend justice intrinsically, excluding reputations and rewards.

  • Adeimantus

    Supports Glaucon's challenge and engages in the discussion about justice's true value.

  • Socrates

    Accepts the challenge to defend justice, proposing to examine it in the larger context of the city.

  • Thrasymachus

    Referenced as having previously argued that justice is another's good and the interest of the stronger.

Key passages

  • they say that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice, evil; but that the evil is greater than the good.

    People believe that committing injustice is naturally beneficial, while suffering it is harmful, and the harm outweighs the benefit.

    Glaucon summarizes the common view that justice is a compromise between the best (unpunished injustice) and the worst (helpless suffering).

  • Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice.

    If both a just and an unjust person had a ring of invisibility, no one would remain just, because everyone naturally pursues their own advantage when free from consequences.

    The myth of Gyges' ring illustrates the claim that justice is only practiced out of necessity, not choice.