And so he took over the rule" (360a, b). To further develop his argument, Glaucon supposes that there were two such rings, and the other one was put on by a just man who refused to do wrong regardless of the temptation. The unjust man would be perfectly unjust and would get away with it, while the just man would be perfectly just but would be maligned as unjust:.

             So he must be stripped of everything except justice, and his situation must be made the opposite of the first man's. Doing no injustice, let him have the greatest reputation for injustice, so that his justice may be put to the test to see if it is softened by bad reputation and its consequences (361c, d).

             Glaucon proposes these two representative men as extreme examples of the two sides of the argument and suggests that their positions be examined after their death to see which was happier, based on the premise that the unjust man meted out injustice at will without ever suffering it himself, while the just man acted only justly but was treated unjustly himself. Glaucon takes this example to the extreme, with the just man being:.

             whipped.racked.bound; he'll have both his eyes burned out; and at the end, when he has undergone every sort of evil, he'll be crucified and know that one shouldn't wish to be, but to seem to be, just (361e-362a).

             Glaucon sets these two men at extremes to prove his point-that happiness does not come from being just but from seeming to be just and reaping the benefits that accrue to that semblance. He relates all human motivation to personal self-interest, as though absolute right and wrong were either nonexistent or completely irrelevant. However, his argument fails to take into account the fact that Socrates subsequently brings up-that when one takes a step back from these two hypothetical men and looks at society as a whole, society is only ideal if its leaders are motivated by a desire for justice.