In the magnificent minds of Glaucon and Socrates exists two different views concerning the relationship between happiness and morality. Glaucon is of the persuasion that happiness only comes to those who get the highest degree of emotional and physical desires satisfied, even at the sacrifice of their moral virtue. Socrates, on the other hand, is consumed with the principle that virtue and happiness go hand in hand. In other words, Socrates would argue that a man stripped of his virtue and morals could never achieve true happiness.
             Glaucon interjected a debate between Thrasymachus and Socrates to assist in proving Socrate's ideals of justice to be false. In order to express his views of justice, Glaucon related a story to Socrates. In this story, Glaucon described a ring that could turn the wearer invisible whenever they chose to use it. Now he supposed that two such rings existed and were given each to a just man and an unjust man. He then explained that without the watchful eye of society or the fear of being caught, there would be no reason to refrain from committing crimes that would normally be cause for punishment. Hence, even a just man would find it beneficial to pursue injustice behind the guise the ring permitted him. Through this story Glaucon illustrates his idea that justice and morality are only qualities sought after for reputation and acceptance to society. Moreover, it would be beneficial to all men to be able to be free from the bonds of justice in order to attain worldly pleasures as long as he appeared just to society. According to Glaucon, justice and morality are both instrumentally good but lack the capability to provide the happiness that stems from injustice. Glaucon concluded his argument by urging Socrates to disprove his theory by means of establishing justice as something intrinsically desirable.
             Socrates gladly confronted the challenge and declared he would defend justice in refuting...