In book II of Republic, Glaucon gives an argument that justice is a merely instrumental good — in other words, that nobody pursues justice of its own sake. In your paper you should: 1) Explain the
problem Glaucon and Socrates are discussing, including his theory of the different types of goods. Explain what is at issue in this section of the dialogue and its significance to the work as a
whole. Define any special terms the reader will need to know.
2) Explain Glaucon’s argument. You don’t need to provide a formal reconstruction, but you should make sure you make clear the various premises/argumentative steps, as well as how they support the
conclusion.

3) Consider an objection to Glaucon’s argument. You could do this a few ways:a. Challenge one of Glaucon’s premises. If one of the claims he uses to establish his conclusion is false, then his
conclusion would no longer follow. So, explain to the reader why they should think one of his premises is actually false. b. Challenge one of the definitions Glaucon is working with. His argument
relies on certain ways of understanding justice/injustice, as well as how he defines instrumental and intrinsic goods. If one of these is wrong, then his argument may no longer work. So, explain to
the reader why his definition is wrong and what the definition should be.
4) Provide an analysis. Consider how Glaucon might reply to your objection. Do you think he can save his argument? If yes, how? If no, why not? How does this discussion reflect on the larger
problem that Glaucon and Socrates were addressing? How would you recommend they proceed given your conclusion about their argument? In addition to the four tasks listed in the prompt, your paper
must also:

5) Include an introduction. Your introduction should set up the problem/paper, include a clear thesis statement that matches what you say in 3 & 4 ( In this paper, I will argue