In Book I of Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus makes the argument that the life of an unjust person is better than that of a just. He then abandons the argument in the beginning of Book II; nonetheless, Glaucon does not accept this desertion. Glaucon wants to be truly convinced that Thrasymachus' view is erroneous and that it really is better to live a just life than an unjust one as Socrates has previously stated to be true. However, the way Glaucon restates Thrasymachus' original arguments makes it truly seem that it is more beneficial to live unjustly than justly. But, at the end of Book IX, Socrates makes it clear that a just live is better than a life of injustice.
             The first argument that Glaucon makes is that it is in one's best interest "to do injustice without paying the penalty," and in ones worst interest to act judiciously and suffer injustice. He goes on to explain that people who act justly do it reluctantly, and only because they lack the will power to practice injustice. If they had the chance to act unjustly and knew there was no chance of reprimand, that they would do it. In order to better explain this concept, Glaucon tells Socrates a story of a magic ring. If a person wore this magic ring with the setting of the ring facing the inside of his hand, he was invisible to all humans, and could do whatever he pleased. He constructs a hypothetical situation in which both a just and an unjust person possess one of these magic rings. Glaucon then states that the actions of the just person "would be in no way different from those of an unjust person." He also says that living unjustly is far more advantageous than living justly.
             The reasoning behind Glaucon's argument is the fact that people only act justly in fear of being punished for doing otherwise. They are afraid that if they live a life of injustice, they will in turn suffer injustice for their wrongdoings. But, Glaucon adds, if one knows he can act unjustly witho...