QUESTION: DISCUSS OR CRITICALLY EXAMINE PLATO’S THEORY OF JUSTICE.

Plato, a blessing in the world of political philosophy is one of the most influential and creative Greek
thinker. Never has any thinker evoked the admiration, reverence and criticism that Plato did- he is the
first to formulate and define political ideas within a larger framework of a philosophical idea of Good. He
left behind many important works, out of which, “THE REPUBLIC”, “THE STATES MAN” and “THE LAWS”
is of paramount significance in the literature of politics till date. As mentioned in Companion to Plato,
Plato was duly born in 427, meets Socrates at the age of 20 (when Socrates was 60) found Academy at
40, voyages to Sicily at 60 and dies at 80 in 347 BC. His real name was Aristocles and he excelled in the
study of music, mathematics and poetry. In this essay, I aim to explore and analyze Plato’s idea of justice
put forth in his work, The Republic which is the first great work of Western political philosophy and has
retained its grip on the imagination of political thinkers for over two thousand years. It is a product of
particular historical circumstances from the Greek world of fifth and earlier fourth centuries BC under
the influence of which Plato came up with the idea of Justice. In his masterpiece, the Republic (380-370
BC), Plato gives prominent place to the theory of justice. It is open to the idea of morality/justice, being
moral or being just is often used interchangeably by Plato in his work. It is one of the finest examples of
dialectical forms wherein the discussions are conducted in a single room in Athens among Socrates,
Cephalus and his son Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon and Adeimantus. Cephalus, Polemarchus
and Thrasymachus appeared in Book I, while the discussion in the later books was carried on by Socrates
and Plato’s two brothers.

VIEWS ON JUSTICE

An old man once told Socrates that he is near to his death now and at this stage of life, you don’t long
for sensuality and physical pleasure but a stimulating conversation (which Socrates was known for).
Through this story and characters of Socrates, Plato puts forward the question of what is just life and
what are the four notions of morality/justice. Plato’s notion of morality is ‘agent centered’ and not ‘act
centered’. It is only after Plato’s proofs that these four conceptions of justice are filled with
contradictions, that Plato gives his own idea of justice. CEPHALUS, a representative of traditional
morality defines justice as “speaking the truth” and “giving every man what is due to him” thereby
identifying justice with right conduct. He is supported by POLEMARCHUS, his son who holds the same
view of justice but with a little alteration, his conception includes "doing good to friends and harm to
enemies." Socrates strongly condemns both the views saying they are not universally acceptable. It
involves uncertainties and instability as one cannot be sure of one’s friends and enemies. A friend might
not actually be a friend in reality. Moreover a just person would never harm anybody, including itself
and therefore he finds this definition very problematic as it ignores the society as whole and only talks
about individual’s relations on individualistic perspectives. (mentioned in D.R. Bhandari’s article).
Another view on the concept of justice is given by THRASYMACHUS (Sophist) who earned a place in the
history of political theory by defining justice as “interests of the stronger”. He propounded a radical
theory of this idea and lies in conformity with laws laid down by the sovereign for its own good. He
believes each government makes laws to serve its own interest and violators of these laws are punished
because they are violating justice. Thrasymachus changed his position after Socrates criticism and says
injustice is better than justice because it brings wisdom, strength and happiness. Justice does not
promote excellence as it keeps individuals under restrains. This is again argued by Socrates who says
Justice is superior in character and intelligence as injustice carries an element of ignorance and stupidity.
A just man is happier and wiser because he acknowledges his limitations. Therefore justice is intrinsically
good as it makes the soul virtuous.Glaucon challenges the above mentioned view of Socrates and says
there are three kinds of ‘good’ and asks Socrates where he would place his idea of justice in these
categories of goods. As he is always been in favour of injustice he wants Socrates to convince him to
believe that justice is better. At this juncture a new point is put forth by Glaucon which later came to be
known as ‘social contract theory’. He continues to argue that “justice has its origin in compromise” and
people practice justice not by their wish but because they are left with no option. Adiemantus, another
character joins Glaucon in challenging Socrates views and says “morality is mattered only because of the
external rewards it brings”. Some people believe in the two extremes. They believe that “doing wrong”
to others is good because it proves to benefit them; causes good to them therefore it’s alright when
they are the one doing wrong. But it does not seem to be good if they are “being wronged” or suffer the
loss of being wronged on by anyone. Faced with both these situations they came to an agreement which
was more like a compromise and instituted laws and governance which would ensure that one would
neither do wrong nor be wronged on or suffer by others. HENCE, JUSTICE IS BUT A COMPROMISE. It
comes between these two extreme views and is not something prized or wished for but is always a
‘compulsion’. Plato saw limitations in Glaucon’s theory of justice where he claims it to be artificial and a
product of conventions and customs.Plato realises after the conversation with all the characters that
there is one common element in these conventional ideas of justice that all of them treated it as
something ‘external’. Nobody regarded it as the inward quality something that resides within human
soul.

PLATO’S IDEA OF JUSTICE

The main argument of the Republic lies in the prolonged search for the location and nature of justice
which is eventually discovered with the help of Plato’s “ideal state”. An ideal state according to him
possessed the four cardinal virtues: wisdom, because its rulers were persons of knowledge courage
because its warriors were brave, discipline in the sense self-discipline because of the harmony that
pervaded the societal matrix due to a common agreement as to who ought to rule and justice in the
sense doing one's job for which one was naturally filled without interfering with others. 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.

CRITICISMS

Though Plato's work is one of the most influential and significant theory in the political philosophy and
attracts humongous admirers, his ideas and views have also been subjected to varied criticisms
byeminent scholars and thinkers.If follow the works of Shefali Jha on Western Political Thought, each
criticism has its own interpretations and one such comes from a Platonist himself, Aristotle who claims
that Plato's political theory was tainted with "Elitism". The responsibility of Political decision making in
Plato's ideal state was vested with the Philosopher Rulers because they were oriented towards the goal
of common of good. He was of the opinion that vast majority of human beings simply lack the sufficient
reasons to decide important things for themselves and considered them incapable of judging the
adequacy of the decisions of their rulers which clearly showed his staunch elitist perspectives. Aristotle
is also of the opinion that Plato was also attacking the democratic institutions of Athens. Another sharp
criticism that Plato faces is from Karl Popper for using the idea of unchecked sovereignty of philosopher
King to undermine the idea of a government being accountable. Few other critics’ points out that
philosophy as a form of political knowledge became a means of suppressed politics in the hands of
Plato. They accuse him of undermining his own fundamental values of justice. In term of reason they
charge him with the accusation that Plato's concept of reason has nothing to do with human
experiences or emotions and passions. Few other charges that are put against his work is that Platonic
doctrine of justice leads to functional specialization and ignores the evils involved in it which challenges
and limits the growth of the individuals thereby making the society impoverished. His idea is based on
moral principles but lacks legal sanctions. Also the theory divides the state into three different classes
which is not applicable in case of modern states with huge populations and varied interests and sections
of society. In fact this idea of his would lead to a class state with class consciousness and privileges.
Moreover critics say that with so much control and monitoring, it was doubtful whether his ideal state
could be the happy one. Some of Plato’s ideas remain unclear like in the case where he draws a parallel
between the state and the individual. It leads to a problem which he left unresolved. Even after all the
above, mentioned criticisms Plato’s work remains unparalleled. His work may be liked or disliked by
people but can never be ignored.

CONCLUSION

Plato was credited for establishing philosophy as a unified and complex discipline, proposing radical
solutions to the political community and human life. His profound work on the idea of justice and
distinctive contribution on political idealism is gift to western political philosophy which one cannot
escape while studying politics. To conclude, Plato is the first systematic political thinker and despite all
the limitations and criticisms one cannot fail to appreciate his invaluable contributions into the world of
political philosophy. Through all the points mentioned above it is clear that Plato along with being a
philosopher was also radical, a revolutionary and a fascist who gave rational ideas to the world and
enabled us to come up with dynamic views on politics. Thus, in a world of rapid change the Platonic
theory of justice has been both an inspiration and a warning for subsequent efforts in Utopian projects.