Plato and Justice

1.
Introduction
Plato is known as an idealist philosopher in Western political thought.
He has been described as a poet of ideas, a philosopher of beauty and the
true founder of the cult of harmonious living.
He became the disciple of Socrates and established ‘The Academy’ in
388B.C. His early writings are Apology, Crito, Republic, etc. which
were in dialogical form between Socrates and his disciples. His later
works include the Statesmen and the Laws. There is a gap of around 30
years between early and later works. During this time, Plato had turned
practical.
Plato was writing during the time of political decay and moral
degradation in Athens. The democratic regime of Athens was
overthrown by Sparta and an oligarchy was imposed. This led to Plato
giving his concept of the ‘Ideal state’.
Plato has been credited for laying the foundation of Greek Political
theory, as he explored, analyzed and covered a wide range of
philosophical perspectives and issues, on which the Western political
tradition rests. Whitehead, paying the most fitting tribute to Plato stated
that the entire European philosophical tradition is nothing but a set of
footnotes to Plato.
2. Plato’s method (true form of justice)
Plato was an idealist, rationalist and a logical thinker. He believed in

‘Theory of Forms’. He used the method of ‘large letters’ and uses
extended metaphors like ‘allegory of cave’ and ‘allegory of line’.
According to Theory of Forms, forms transcend the empirical world of
sensations and include both, physical and ethical dimensions. Therefore,
virtues also have corresponding forms and so do objects. Plato
distinguishes between belief and knowledge and argues that what we see
around us are a multitude of varieties such that what is the true form of
or value of something such as justice, beauty and truth is not known to
us. Therefore, to know the true form of something, we must turn to the
ideal form or to the world of ideas.
Also, forms do not belong to the world of sensations and therefore,
cannot be seen or visualized. They are to be understood through training
for which Plato gave an elaborate system of education.
Thus, it meant that the true form of justice can only be understood by the
ruling class and hence the ruler in Plato’s writing has been termed as the
“Philosopher King”.
3. Traditional theories of justice (by Sophists)

Before Plato, there were three theories of justice given by Sophists
which were disregarded by Socrates.
a. Traditional view of Justice
Cephalus argues that justice is telling the truth and repaying what one
has borrowed because he had promised to. However, Socrates argues
that if you borrow a knife from someone, you shouldn’t return it to him
if he has gone mad.
Polemarchus defending Cephalus argues that justice is giving to each
what is owed. It implies doing good to friends and being bad to enemies.
However, Socrates argues that doing harm to someone will make the
individual less just and hence less moral.
b. Radical theory of Justice

Thrasymachus argues that justice is the advantage of the stronger and the
stronger is taken to mean the ruling class. Justice for him is subjective
because rulers determine morality according to their own interests and it
will differ according to different rulers. Therefore, injustice is virtuous
and vice.
Socrates critiques his view and argues that a just man does not want to
get better off everyone but only the unjust.
Socrates second argument is that injustice is inferior to justice because it
is diversified. Plato shows that a soul has different parts. If a man were
to act unjustly, his passion would be in conflict with his reason which
seeks justice.
Justice is for everyone, it is universal. It cannot be for any one class.
c. Practical theory of Justice
Glaucon argues that ordinary men are both rational and selfish. The
rational acknowledgement of powerlessness of each individual lead to
making of social contract. Thus, laws are established and justice,
therefore, is a social instrument. It is never perfect but a compromise.
Socrates is critical of this theory because he argues that law and justice
cannot be based on a compromise or a contract which is external to the
individual. Justice cannot be based on fear.
4. Justice in individual and the ideal state
Socrates examined the origin of states and cities and pointed out that
they arose due to two different reasons. The first was mutual need to
reciprocal services since no individual was self-sufficient and had to
depend on others for subsistence. The second is the differences in the
aptitudes of individuals. Owing to this, individuals could be trained to
specialize and perform one particular task.
Thus, the functions of a society were broadly three – ruling, defense and
production. The last one included all kinds of trade and crafts.
a. The theory of Tripartite Soul and Three Classes
Plato explained his argument for differing individual capacities with the
help of the theory of three souls and three classes. Every human soul has
three qualities: reason, spirit and appetite. In each soul, one of the
qualities is predominant. Justice as the fourth quality acts as balancer
and harmonizer between the other three.
The souls, in whom ‘reason’ is predominant would constitute the ruling
class and the virtue of such soul is wisdom. This soul has the power to
comprehend the Idea of Good.
Those in whom ‘spirit’ was the predominant quality were the auxiliaries
or warriors and the virtue of such souls was courage.
Together, the rulers and warriors would constitute the guardian class.
Individuals whose soul was ‘appetitive’ exhibited a fondness of material
things. They were lovers of gain and money. These were the artisans or
the producing class. The quality of an appetitive soul was temperance.
Justice in the individual meant that every individual was assigned a
place in the society according to one’s natural aptitude and skills.
Furthermore, justice was psychic harmony, balancing and ordering three
elements in accordance with the dominant one. In this sense, justice was
social. A just individual was also a good person. His purpose was to
establish the relationship between virtue and happiness.
Justice in the state meant that the three social classes performed the
deliberative and governing, defense and production without interfering
in the functions of others. Justice was ‘one class, one duty; one man, one
work’. A just society recognized and educated every individual
according to the dominant element in one’s soul and ordered these
elements into coherent classes.
5. Importance of justice in Plato’s political thought

For Plato, the state was Ideal, of which justice was the reality. Justice
was the principle on which the state had to be founded and a
contribution made towards the excellence of the city. The central
question of the Republic was the meaning of justice or right conduct or
morality. It did not refer to legality. He emphasized on knowledge to
impart justice. Thus, Plato states that till philosophers are kings or kings
are philosophers, justice in a state cannot be achieved. Justice is needed
to make sure that the rulers do not turn corrupt and the right kind of
rulers are chosen.
Some features of Plato’s theory of justice are:
i) Justice cannot be inscribed on individuals by external force. It is
the reflection of the soul
ii) It is based on the ideas of non-interference
iii) It is also measured by functional specialization
iv) Plato’s concept of social justice is also a reflection of social unity.
Social justice is achieved when there is unity and cohesion
between groups and individuals.
v) It talks about how justice in individual can lead to justice in
society and state.
6. Critique
a. Ernst Barker has argued that the biggest flaw in Plato’s theory of
justice is that it is not a theory of justice at all. Plato only writes
about the duties and not about the rights of individuals. Also,
justice is not associated with any proper law.
b. Historically, people have struggled for the establishment of justice
but in Plato’s Ideal state, the individuals are so self-controlled and
disciplined that they are incapable of playing a major role in
process of social change.
c. The concept of dividing the souls into three parts is not rational as
these parts of the soul are internal to the individual and according
to human psychology, are indivisible and interdependent.
d. Sabine argues that Plato wanted to maintain the status quo by tying
individual to his/her nature to avoid social conflict but social
justice hence achieved may lead to class conflict.
e. Plato subordinated the individual to the state which is harmful for
human psyche and soul.
f. Plato has provided the ruling class all the powers to establish a
totalitarian rule. Singular control of power is likely to make the
guardian class corrupt and hence lead to injustice. Plato’s concept
of justice has led to him being criticized as a fascist and totalitarian
thinker.
7. Conclusion

Plato and Justice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plato and Justice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plato and Justice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.

2. Plato’s method (true form of justice)

Plato was an idealist, rationalist and a logical thinker. He believed in

3. Traditional theories of justice (by Sophists)

b. Radical theory of Justice

5. Importance of justice in Plato’s political thought

You might also like