Hello again, awesome nerds.
I’m back on my journey through the history of philosophy. In this text, I’ve reached what is commonly considered Plato’s greatest work: the famous Republic (Adamson, 2014; Kenny, 2010; Russell, 1946). With it, Plato mainly aimed to define justice, and its importance and fame come from the political ideas it presents (Kenny, 2010; Russell, 1946). It is a lengthy and complex group of books that, besides discussing political philosophy, also explores moral psychology, aesthetics, epistemology, and even metaphysics (Adamson, 2014).
The Republic can be divided into three parts: the first part, has Plato (through Socrates as per usual of him) answer a challenge to prove that justice is something worthwhile for its own sake by explaining how what he considers to be the ideal society would be structured; as Plato ends the first part concluding that the best rules must be philosophers (what a lucky coincidence for you Mr Plato!) he then proceeds to define the word philosopher; and in the third part Plato discusses different types of constitutions a state can have, explaining the flaws and benefits of each (Kenny, 2010; Russell, 1946).
What is Justice?
In an interesting reference to real life, Plato starts the Republic with Socrates having a discussion with Plato’s brothers Glaucon and Ademantus, as well as another character named Thrasymachus, about the nature of justice (Adamson, 2014; Kenny, 2010; Russel, 1946).
Glaucon and Ademantus share their view that if people could get away with doing immoral actions without being found out, they would prefer to act in ethically wrong ways (Kenny, 2010). Glaucon backs this with a mythical story: imagine that a farmer finds a ring that turns him invisible when he wears it, and they use said ring to kill the king, seduce his wife, and become the ruler of the land. If we found a ring like this, we would all succumb to its temptation (Adamson, 2014).
Wait a second…a ring that makes you invisible. Why does that sound familiar? It’s probably nothing that inspired future literature.
This tale of the ring is supposed to show that people don’t really value justice, the rewards of seeming to be just (Adamson, 2014; Kenny, 2010).
Further reinforcing this point, Thrasymachus expresses that often justice is giving up an advantage to yourself for the sake of another person, for example, keeping the terms of a contract even if it would be more profitable not to (Adamson, 2014). To Thrasymachus this means that, despite going against the popular view, it is natural and just for those who have advantages, “the strong” to do what gives them more advantage (Adamson, 2014; Russell, 1946).
Through his characters, Plato raises a fundamental question in ethics and politics: Is there any standard of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, except what the person saying these words means at the time they say it? We are forced to struggle with the question of whether there is an objective truth or falsehood in such a statement as ‘having fun is good’ in the same sense as in such a statement as ‘snow is white’? A simple answer to this question comes from religion: God determines what is good and what is bad. But it is not as simple as that. A contemporary view held by Theologians is that God is good, which implies there exists a standard of goodness separate from God’s will (Russell, 1946).
Some people may try evading the fundamental question of there being an objective truth to justice by saying that they don’t know what “objective truth” means, as it has not yet been found. These same people may say they will accept something as true if virtually all those who have researched the question agree on something being true. Fair point, but it opens the question: are there any ethical statements that are agreed upon by almost everyone? If there are, then we will have some bases on which to create rules for personal behaviour and political theories. If there are not, then independently of what any philosophic truth may be, our opinion on what is ethical or just is likely to be shaped and changed by either propaganda or displays of power from influential people or groups (Russell, 1946). Think about your immediate family, your wider social group, people you follow on social media, tv series you watch, and the decisions made by your local government. How have these influenced your thoughts about what is ethical and just? If you think they haven’t, you need to try again, as what else could have led to you developing your current opinions?
Returning to Plato’s book, at this point in the text, Glaucon and Adeimantus express their wish to be definitively convinced that it is better to be just than unjust (Adamson, 2014). Glaucon even tries to contribute to the conversation, suggesting that we think about justice as an agreement we have with everyone else not to harm each other. Humans would normally be unjust and mean, taking what we want to meet our own perceived needs and wants, and making others suffer what we think they deserve. However, because this scenario would be cruel and harmful for almost everyone most of the time, ourselves included, we agree not to behave like that (Adamson, 2014). This sets a precedent for the basis of some moral and political institutions that, years later, are called “contract theories” (Adamson, 2014). The most famous of these is by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (Adamson, 2014) – which I hope to eventually get to.
Plato, through Socrates, appears to somewhat agree with this argument, stating that any political view that sacrifices justice for the sake of being convenient or practical has greatly misunderstood the real interests of people (Adamson, 2014) – a lens that may be worth using to reflect on our current society and behaviours. Furthermore, Socrates adds that political rule must, first, aim to benefit the ruled and not the ruler, and that a good ruler should rule reluctantly, as ruling should aim at caring for the good of the subjects as opposed to their own (Adamson, 2014). Socrates even compares this to medicine and how it aims to benefit the patient and not the doctor (Adamson, 2014). This view is still contemporary, as we live in a time that doesn’t lack examples of how people in power can use that power for their own benefit while the average person continues to struggle to make a living.
He continues his argument by suggesting that, because larger things are easier to see compared to smaller ones, exploring what justice looks like in a city or state will help better understand what the nature of justice looks like for a single individual (Adamson, 2014; Kenny, 2010; Russell, 1946). Some of you might argue that here, Plato is just assuming that there is a parallel between a city and an individual. And isn’t there? We do talk about justice for countries, states, cities, and individuals, the term usually meaning the same for all of these. Thus, if Plato can find similar characteristics in both a city and an individual, this comparison can be a sound argument. (Adamson, 2014).
So, Plato uses the literary Socrates to describe what the ideal city is like for him, which brings us to:
Justice at the level of a city will be the justice permeating the political constitution that organises and runs said city. This connection will make more sense if we start by defining political justice, starting with the word “politics”. It originates from the ancient Greek word “polis”, which, surprise, surprise, means “city” (Adamson, 2014). Thus, when Plato refers to politics or political constitutions, this is aimed at how a polis, or single city, functions as opposed to a modern institution such as a nation (Adamson, 2014).
Instead of using any existing cities as an example of what is the most just way of administering one, Plato’s Socrates explains his ideally just city from a blank slate (Adamson, 2014). He then adds the characteristics he sees fit, starting with the rationale for someone to live in a city, which is to allow the people to provide for each other’s needs through a logical sharing of labour that allows each person to apply their different skills (Kenny, 2010).
This description evolves into a very modest city, where a small communitarian population of farmers, craftsmen, and traders cooperate to live in peace, eating a mostly vegetarian diet, while wearing simple clothing (Adamson, 2014). It was Plato’s view that if people lead a content life through the satisfaction of their basic needs, a very simple communitarian city like this would be enough and ideal (Kenny, 2010).
Who would have imagined that Plato would be the one to come up with the idea of a hippie commune? Wait another second…a happy, peaceful place, witha small population that is content with having their basic needs satisfied…sounds boring, no one will ever write a book about that.
You know who was probably a servant of Morgoth and didn’t enjoy this peaceful way of living? Glaucon, who in the text protests by saying that Socrates’ description of an ideal city sounds more like a city of pigs than a city of men (Adamson, 2014). Plato has Socrates explain that if a population wants more luxuries beyond what is necessary to satisfy basic needs, that is when a city needs to expand, have more complex political arrangements, and a well-trained military force to conquer and defend other lands (Adamson, 2014; Kenny, 2010).
This is where Plato introduces a famous, but controversial point in the Republic – the class system (Adamson, 2014). In this part of the text, Plato explains how this city would need a division of its population into three groups: the labourers or craftsmen, the soldiers who maintain order, and the guardians who rule over the former two with unquestioned authority (Adamson, 2014; Kenny, 2010; Russell, 1946).
THE DIFFERENT CLASSES
As usual, Plato uses his written version of Socrates to, throughout the several next books of the Republic, give us more details about this diseased version of his ideal city (Adamson, 2014).
He explains that guardians will need an education that will make them into patriotic and disciplined fighters. During this educational period, there will be a need to divide the guardians into two sub-classes: the “true guardians”, who become the rulers of the city, selected through competition and by displaying a natural gift for self-control; and the “auxiliaries”, who will become the soldiers that make the army for defending the city (Adamson, 2014; Kenny, 2010). More specifically, to get the first generation of true guardians, a legislator will oversee and select which people show the desired characteristics (Russell, 1946). In the generations following this, guardians are selected hereditarily: the children of guardians will themselves be guardians (Russel, 1946). This does not mean there is no mobility between classes. We are told that in rare cases a child who shows promising characteristics may be promoted from a farmer of auxiliary into a guardian. Or equally, the child of a guardian who doesn’t meet the criteria to be a guardian can be demoted to the other classes (Russell, 1946).
This strict selection comes from the need to ensure that the individuals who are selected to become the true guardians are the ones who show themselves to be the wisest in the community, thus being fit to have political power and rule (Russell, 1946).
The other aspect of the city that Plato makes quite strict is how property would be owned. He proposes a communist model, where true guardians and auxiliaries have no private property beyond what is absolutely necessary (Kenny, 2010; Russell, 1946). They also cannot have money, with gold and silver being forbidden (Kenny, 2010; Russell, 1946). After selecting the men and women who will become true guardians, the previously mentioned legislator will mandate that they live in something similar to a shared camp, where they will be given small and modest shared houses, and eat simple food together (Kenny, 2010; Russell, 1946).
The reason the city is organised in this way is because its purpose is the good of the whole, not the happiness of a single class (Russell, 1946). Plato considers both poverty and wealth to be harmful to a society, so he won’t allow either to exist in his city (Russell, 1946). Under this system, true guardians and auxiliaries may never become rich, but they should be happy as they have their needs met (Russell, 1946).
In the next part, I will go into more detail on how the women and children living in Plato’s utopic city are treated, and discuss Plato’s conclusion on the nature of justice.
See you in the next one,
The Physiolosopher.
References:
Adamson, P. 2014. Classical Philosophy: A history of philosophy without any gaps, Volume 1. 1st edition. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Kenny, A. 2010. A New History of Western Philosophy: In Four Parts. Reprint Edition. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Russel, B. 1946. History of Western Philosophy. Routledge – Taylor and Francis Group: New York.
The Physiolosopher 