Philosophers usually tend to think and respond in totally different and opposite ways. However, in Glaucon’s challenge, Aristotle, Spinoza, Hume, Kant and Mill agreed that it’s an uncontrollable system of desire. In Glaucon’s challenge he describes three important ideas. The first idea is “of the nature and origin of unjust, according to the common view of them” (488). The second idea is “I will show that all men who practice justice do so against their will, of necessity but not as a good” (488).
The third idea is “I will argue that there is reason in this view, for the life of the unjust is after all better far than the life of the just” (488). Each one of these philosophers responded to this challenge similar and different manners. Aristotle believed that to be a good man is to have good morality. In his point of view he sees that morality gives a reason that leads to actions. Artistotle respond toward Glaucon’s challenge is reason guides passion. This makes him an injustice man because he just cares about how to please himself and follow his desire.
Spinoza’s idea is emotions have nothing to do with human beings its reasons that guide us. He believed that passion and emotions leads us to be changeable due to how the world around us and not necessarily our knowledge. Reasons give us the opportunity to gain knowledge of life. Spinoza becomes unjust and gives reasons to Glaucon’s challenge. From Hume’s point of view he believed that benevolence makes us social being instead of self interest. Hume’s main concern is sympathy and empathy. Sympathy is the nature of human that makes them human beings. It’s the ability to see feel pity toward other.
Empathy is the understanding of pain and happiness of one another. Hume believed that all human are selfish and that their passion guides their reasons. Passion and reasons is not having emotions or feeling pity. Hume’s view is that we should the ability to feel others emotions and understand them. Kant sees that the categorical imperative is the only moral way to act. Categorical imperatives are based on ideals of logic and acts on duty. He believed that if you feel satisfied about something you did, you shouldn’t consider it a reward but rather as a bonus for you.
We only do moral things because it’s in fulfill our interest and benefit. Kant responds to Glaucon’s challenge that if the act is immoral, then it cannot be considered into categorical imperative. Mill’s view is that everyone should be satisfied and happy. He believes that everyone should think of the consequences of their actions before deciding to make them. Mill puts others as well as himself into consideration before any action. He doesn’t argue towards or against Glaucon’s challenge, he just cares about his pleasure and others. Each philosopher had his own argument toward Glaucon’s challenge.
Their ideas were unjust happiness towards Glaucon’s challenge. Aristotle and Hume had opposite views. Aristotle‘s idea towards the challenge was reason guides passion, where Hume’s idea was passion guides reason. Mill and Kant had the same assumptions. Mill expresses about pleasure and Kant was certain about duty. Mill agrees with Aristotle as well, they believe that happiness is a man’s ambition and human existence. Spinoza is just unjust to the whole idea of the challenge. These philosophers’ ideas were very similar that a man would behave unjust if he had the ring.