Toward Discovery of the Argument in Glaucon's Speech
in Plato's Republic 2.358c-360d

Partial Analysis by Dr. Jan Garrett

Last revised date: September 8, 2006

Important note: The term translated by "morality" in the Waterfield translation is normally translated as "justice."

This speech is part of Plato's dialogue The Republic, which is ten "books" (originally scrolls) in length.

It is not a dialogue, even if it is part of a dialogue.

Plato is its immediate author, but the views it contains are likely not those of Plato. Socrates, the primary speaker in the Republic as a whole, usually presents views likely to be shared by Plato; this is especially the case when he seems to be building a more or less systematic theory.

Glaucon's speech is actually aimed against the view Socrates maintains beginning near the end of book I. It represents a challenge Socrates will try to overcome. (The main part of Socrates' response is found in the Reason and Emotion section of VAP.)

There are some hints in the text that Glaucon is not himself entirely convinced by this argument, but this is the argument he presents. For that reason I'm describing it as if he really accepted it.

Although this speech begins with an explanation of the origin of "morality," it is, as a whole, an argument: it eventually reaches conclusions that contradict the view Socrates is defending. Socrates' view is, essentially,

Morality is desirable for its own sake in addition to being desirable as a means.

The contradictory of this is:

Morality is only instrumentally desirable (i.e., desirable as a means), or
Morality is not desirable not for its own sake.

Against Socrates' view Glaucon tries to show that

The rewards of immorality far outweigh those of morality.
Morality is only practiced reluctantly, by people who lack the ability to do wrong.

An important part of Glaucon's speech is his explanation of the origin of morality--actually what he takes to be the prevailing conception of morality. It is important because the theory of human nature that Glaucon uses to explain the prevalence of this conception is used later to advance his main argument.

Glaucon is trying to show that the (best) explanation for the origin and widespread acceptance of morality, understood as the rule that we should neither injure others nor be injured by them, are the general psychological "facts":

By nature doing injury is good
By nature being injured by another is bad. (358e)

What this seems to mean is that because of our human nature,

We necessarily regard doing injury to others as good (perhaps because they are potential rivals for other things we want)

We necessarily regard as bad being injured by another.

The definition of morality Glaucon is using is important:

Morality is a (potential or actual) agreement neither to injure nor to be injured.

He thinks that

In fact such an agreement is generally in force (in his own time).

This "fact" needs an explanation, he thinks, and that explanation is the theory of human nature Glaucon has introduced.

So, is morality for Glaucon sometimes an end in itself or is it at most a means or an instrument?

It's important to note that Glaucon not only considers the condition of humanity before the establishment of a state with laws, he also considers the present condition in which states already exist and try to enforce morality. I think we can assume, beginning at 359a8 (roughly the middle of VAP p. 384) that a general respect for morality (as defined by Glaucon) exists and familiar institutions (e.g., police) are set up to detect and punish immorality.

Against this background, Glaucon can assume (in fact, he would predict) that most people act morally, bearing in mind that Glaucon takes the "by nature" theory of motivation to have been established.

In other words, there are two main stages of Glaucon's case: one which explains the origin of conventional ideas about morality from a situation in which, presumably, a commitment to morality did not exist, a second in which conventional ideas about morality are widely although imperfectly enforced. (The same theory of human nature operates in both circumstances.)

Just about everything Glaucon says is aimed to support the main point of the speech and to argue against Socrates' position.

MOST OF THE KEY STEPS

It's up to you to distinguish between premises, intermediate steps, and conclusions, and to determine to the best of your ability, given the evidence of the text, the hints above, and our discussions in class, how the various are logically related to one another.

Morality may be defined as a (potential or actual) agreement neither to injure others nor be injured by them.

By nature doing injury is good. (358e)

By nature being injured by another is bad. (358e)

Being injured tends to be worse than not doing injury. (358e)

Prior to an actual agreement creating morality (as an institution), there are more disadvantages to being vulnerable to injury than there are advantages in having a chance to injure others. (358e-359a)

If we lived in a condition without morality we would agree to live by morality if others are so willing (359a)

People do in fact agree to live by morality (for the most part).

The "by nature" theory of motivation is confirmed. (We could say that this is an egoistic theory.)

If a particular theory is the best explanation for a puzzling fact, we should accept the (other facts) hypothesized by the theory.

Nowadays the agreement to treat each other morally is backed up by law-enforcement institutions that attempt to detect and punish acts of deviation from the rules of morality.

Under normal circumstances nowadays, it is in a person's interests to act morally, i.e., keep to the agreement. (See 359b)

If a person could ------------- without being ----------- while others could not do so, this person would have nothing to fear. (Fill in the blanks appropriately.)

If a person could ---------------without ----------- while others could not do so, it would be in her interest to -----------------------. (Fill in the blanks appropriately.)

Some of the reasoning involved in the preceding steps is illustrated by the story of the magic ring.

Those who act morally do so with reluctance. (359b)

Everyone thinks that the rewards of immorality (if one could ---- ) outweigh those of morality. (360d)

What everyone thinks is likely to be true. (Assumption)

The rewards of immorality, if -----, outweigh those of morality.

Morality is desirable only as a means, i.e., only for its probable results (and then only in normal circumstances).