Platos book the Republic is now believed to be one of the most influential works in the history of Western philosophy and political science. This work focuses on a large number of questions; one of them is the definition of such notions as justice and injustice. In this book Plato intends to construct a model of an ideal or harmonious state, which would be governed by philosopher-kings, or those people who are best suited for the role of rulers. The author advocates the belief that “to be just is always better than to be unjust” (Plato, 39). The main message which this quote conveys is that justice is not only a moral obligation, but a necessity. It is not a burden which a person must bear just out of the fear of punishment. On the contrary, it is “the knowledge of the good” that helps people to co-exist with one another (Plato, 215). Therefore, the ignorance of an unjust man harms the others and himself. This is one of the core ideas in the Republic.
This opinion is frequently challenged throughout the book. It should be borne in mind that Plato expresses his views through the key, protagonist, Socrates, one of the greatest Greek thinkers and the authors teacher. At the very beginning, Socrates, Thrasymachus and Glaucon try to present various interpretation of justice. Thrasymachus believes that justice is “the interest of the stronger” (Plato, 18). In his opinion, everything can be just if it is useful for those people who possess power. However, Socrates refutes this theory by saying that rulers do not always know what is in the best interest because every human being can make mistakes. Therefore, there should be some principle which they can follow in order to make the right decision. However, another interlocutor, Glaucon does not fully agree with Socrates. He thinks that people behave in a just manner mostly in fear of retribution (Plato, 43). In other words, justice can only be imposed from outside. Consequently, everyone may commit a crime or any other immoral act if he or she knows that it can be done it with impunity. This is Glaucons overarching thesis.
In his turn, Socrates attempts to prove that this opinion is erroneous. First, he points out that justice is absolutely essential for the functioning of any community, city or state. Without it this city may simply collapse in chaos. Therefore, justice may be interpreted as the principles established within the state for the welfare of each citizen. They are intended to serve the best interests of an individual and society. This is the reason why justice should not viewed only as moral duty. This resembles the idea of social contract (Ferari, 353). To some extent, such approach reminds common law views on the concept of justice (Kelsen, 385; Lippens, 31). It should be born in mind that according to the principles of common law, the judge must rely not only on statutes and regulations but only on his own perceptions of justice (Sarat & Kearns, 7). So, to some degree, he may act like a philosopher-king. Nevertheless, Plato argues that this is the privilege of aristocracy this is why many of his views have been criticized (Ryan, 8).
Finally, Socrates strives to elaborate his ideas; he states that a “tyrant never tastes of true freedom or friendship” (Plato, 287). Finally, sooner or later such individual will be overthrown by his subordinates. The thing is that his dominance relies on compulsion rather than persuasion. Paradoxically, he, himself, fears the others. In this way, his life gradually turns into a constant nightmare. Plato also proposes a metaphor of “a many-headed monster having a ring of heads of all manner of beasts” (Plato, 314). Modern scholars believe that this beast represents various sides of human ego, most basic instincts (Rice, 114; Pappass, 100). The key problem is that an unjust man is the person who is governed by this beast. This eventually leads him to ruin.
It should be noted that Socrates marks out several elements of human nature, 1) the appetitive beast, in other words, human desires; 2) the lion or our emotions; and the reason, human part. These elements are hierarchical. The reason is placed at the highest level and the major goal of a person is to govern or subdue the appetitive beast. In turn, an unjust man cannot to do that and becomes virtually subhuman creature.
Naturally, Platos Republic does not offer conclusive evidence that justice is always better than injustice. Perhaps, each individual has to decide it for oneself. Overall, we may say that Plato does not actually offer concise explanation of justice in his work. He only enumerates some of its major elements like search for truth, welfare, and moral reason. Socrates defends justice against injustice claiming that injustice is perilous to the community and to the individual. Justice lays the foundations for the existence of every society. Hence, it is not an external obligation imposed from outside.
Works Cited
Ferrari. G. R. The Cambridge companion to Plato’s Republic. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Kalsen H. What is justice?: justice, law, and politics in the mirror of science: collected essays. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2000.
Lippens. R. Imaginary boundaries of justice: social and legal justice across disciplines. Hart Publishing, 2004.
Pappas. N. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Plato and the Republic. Routledge, 2003.
Plato, & Jowett B. Republic. Spark Educational Publishing, 2005.
Ryan. A. Justice Oxford readings in politics and government. Oxford University Press, 1993.
Rice. D, H. A Guide to Plato’s Republic. Oxford University Press, 1998.
Sarat, A, & Kearns T, R. Justice and injustice in law and legal theory. University of Michigan Press, 1998.