Essay on Plato Theory of Justice

Plato’s ‘Nature of Justice: A Critical Analysis

This essay is a culmination of personal opinions along with reference to several other works on a similar topic all of which have been cited duly.

Abstract

There are several takes on the nature and theories of justice. However, Plato in his Republic provides some very famous arguments for what justice means and what it is to be a just individual living in a just state. He has criticized the already existing theories on justice and propounded one of his own. He was extremely disappointed with the political situation in Athens and this is what motivated him to go forward and propose a theory of his own. The following essay explains the ‘Nature of justice’ as put forth by Plato and what it is to be a ‘Just Individual’ and a ‘Just State’. In this essay, I have critically analyzed the theory and concluded whether it is fit for application in the real world or not.

Plato’s Theory of Justice: Background

Before getting into the analysis of Plato’s theory of justice it is very important to understand the theories and propositions that existed before it. Cephalus pointed out that justice is nothing but the right conduct. It is concerned with paying off one’s debt. Similarly, Polemarchus also points out justice to be an act of doing good to friends but bad to one’s enemies. Socrates criticized Polemarchus on the grounds that, “what if a friend only portrays to be one?” Moreover, is it just to harm anyone? Be they friends or enemies? Then, he questioned Cephalus on the point that is justice only being truthful and paying off debt. Moreover, there are so many cases when it is extremely harmful to be truthful. Thus, he is not convinced by either of the definition of justice. Then after these two philosophers, there is a conversation between Socrates and Thrasymachus in ‘The Republic. According to Thrasymachus, justice is a scenario wherein the strong make rules and the weak adhere to them. To this Socrates counters by saying what if the ruler who is supposed to make laws is unaware of the interest of the weaker sections of the society? Will it still be just? The final argument before Plato’s theory of justice is the one put forth by brothers, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. They say that individuals that are just are not so because they believe in it but because they are scared of punishment and thus do justice out of mere necessity. In situations like this, they suggest injustice is better. (Bhandari, Plato's Concept Of Justice: An Analysis)

Plato was very dissatisfied with the conditions of Athens and believed that this degenerating condition was what led to the demise of Socrates. He believed that the democracy in Athens was in ruins. He was very critical of the theories that had been provided by Cephalus(giving what is owed), Polemarchus(good to friends and bad to enemies), Thrasymachus(only for the ruler), and Glaucon(social contract between two people of equal power). (Bhandari, Plato's Concept Of Justice: An Analysis)

As a result of his dissatisfaction, Plato started to find a loophole in the existing democratic system in Athens. He then concluded that the problem would be solved with the emergence of an effective justice system. He believed that the system would work only if there was harmony and the feeling of goodness among human beings. Plato imagined a state where the citizens will keep aside their irrational desires and selfishness and be just. Thus, Plato concluded that justice was the only cure for the evils that had been existing in society and propagated the idea of a ‘Just State’ and ‘Just person’ that describes the idea of the ‘Nature of Justice’ put forth by Plato.

Plato’s Nature of Justice1

Plato in ‘The Republic’ gives a very important position to the idea of justice. According to him, the ‘nature-ordained’ duty is justice. Socrates says that in order to understand the meaning of justice one must first see its application at the level of the state and the level of an individual. He writes, “To do one’s own business and not to be a busybody is justice” (Republic 433b). His concept of justice has a ‘just state’ where reside ‘just individuals’. The concept of justice according to Plato is indulging in what is best suited and what the individual is specialized in. however, excess and deficiency of any kind will be regarded as an injustice. He believes that the failure to ensure a just society would lead to the disintegration of the entire state. (Wright, 2012)

The city and soul analogy is proposed by Socrates in the book to enable the readers to understand the concept of justice for an individual soul and this analogy is to show the interrelation between individuals and the state. To elaborate on his theory of justice there is an attempt to understand how society shapes an individual and how individuals shape society. To simplify this further Plato puts out two important features of justice

The first is the concept of a just individual wherein every individual is viewed as a functional unit that has been allotted a particular task and is obligated to limit himself to performing that task alone.

The second is the concept of a just society where there is a sense of harmony in the system of assigning distinctive roles to each representing an important function of the society.

Thus, a Platonic idea of justice is ‘harmony in the city’ and ‘harmony in the soul’. It is the creation of an environment where every individual in the state is performing what that individual is naturally suited for. Justice for Plato meant, “one class, one duty; one man, one work”

Just individual.

Plato believes that just individuals result in a just state and individuals are not disconnected from the state. He says that every soul has three elements; ‘reason’, ‘spirit’, and ‘appetite’. Socrates says that each individual will be just only if each and every part of the individual is performing its proper function. (tanwar, Plato’s Theories: Theory of Justice, Education, and Communism)

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

In Plato’s analogy, the part of the soul that is the reason part, that is rational must rule. It must have the wisdom to act for the whole. On the other hand, the spirit part of the soul is deemed to obey. This part will agree to and support whatever it is that the rational part of the soul puts forth. Lastly, the appetite part of the soul has a role other than simply following. Thus, one can conclude that in a just individual the goal of the soul is to fulfill the desires and the orders of the rational part. This can be compared to a just society wherein the motive of the entire society is to fulfill the goals and the aims of the guardian philosopher. Therefore, justice deals with the inner self of a man and not with external actions. A just individual will ensure that the three features of the soul do not interfere with each other (similar to a just society where the three strata do not interfere.). The trespassing of one function over the other will lead to chaos in the mind and create injustice. According to Plato, in a situation where one element rebels against the others when it is only supposed to behave as a slave in its natural role then a situation of injustice arises.

Just State.

Plato considers the theory of the ideal state as ‘individual writ large. Plato believes that every individual in a state has a specific role in it and they are best suited to adhering to their roles and not interfering with the jobs of others. According to him each individual in a state should be put to use in the particular field that nature intended him, where he has a specialization. Everyone must focus on only their specific intended business and not indulge in several businesses. (tanwar, Plato’s Theories: Theory of Justice, Education, and Communism).

Like Plato’s ‘just individual’s soul is divided into three parts(reason, spirit, and appetite), a just society is also divided. Plato’s ‘just state’ is divided into three main classes namely the ‘guardians’, those who govern the state, and philosophers. Second, are the ‘auxiliaries’, they are the soldiers that defend the state and the final class is that of the ‘producers.’ (Wright, 2012). The philosophers are the ones that have attained great knowledge and are enlightened. However, they are not motivated by a palatial lifestyle and live deprived of their private family and live with members of the auxiliaries. Thus, a platonic state of justice does not talk about equality, in fact, it is quite opposite to that and establishes an orderly hierarchy within the state. It aims at creating and propagating the concept of the class hierarchy. He believes in the concept of ‘Philosopher kings’ who would rule the people of a particular state and these individuals do not have the freedom to be flexible with their work opportunities. The state is very rigid with respect to what each individual in the state must do. (Mishra, 2018) This way according to Plato, the entire state would be one and not be divided into too many. Plato proposes that a state is said to be completely just when all the three classes of the state are meticulously involved in their own business and such a state possesses four major virtues; ‘wisdom, courage, discipline, and justice. (tanwar, Plato’s Theories: Theory of Justice, Education, and Communism)

Critical Analysis of Plato’s theory of justice:

Plato’s theory of justice as put forth in ‘The Republic’ may sound very well organized where every individual in the state has a role to fulfill and there is coordination. However, upon critically analyzing the nature of justice put forth by Plato one cannot ignore the several loopholes and setbacks in the theory that prove that the nature of justice propounded by Plato is wrong in the practical sense:

Plato in his idea of a ‘just state’ mentions how a state would do justice if and only if every individual is doing things that they are best suited for. Here, he introduces the concept of ‘specialization’. Plato assumes that everyone is working in harmony in what they are specialized in and writes nothing about what the state will do if a conflict arises. He has turned a blind eye to the chances of disagreements between the various individuals of either the same class or of different classes. Thus, his concept of a just state is very ‘superficial’ and does not dig in enough to realize that conflict is inevitable.

Plato describes justice as a ‘human virtue’, something that is concerned with the soul of an individual. He proposes and elaborates on ‘morality’. However, legal provisions are very important. Morality is one thing but legality is another. Plato has no clear distinction between the two. Thus, in a state that follows the nature of justice proposed by Plato, upon any conflict or disagreement, moral duty may not bear any benefits and legal actions will be required. A set of external rules is very important for the functioning of the state which is missing in the theory of justice proposed by Plato as it only sheds light on internal ideals and values. The concept of morality may a) be subjective and b) not be enough to sort out any form of conflict that arises.

Thus, along with pointing out the lack of a proper legal system, it is essential to note that the system of justice under Plato has no structural document written or unwritten that must be adhered to. No sense of rights and wrongs is laid in the sense of a written constitution that can be referred to when the time arises. This however is not surprising at all because Plato assumes that everyone is living in harmony and there exists no conflict so there is no need for a written document that people must adhere to.

Plato gives no freedom of choice to the individuals of a state. They are meant to do only what they are assumed to be best at. If a person wants to indulge in some other job it is considered to be an interference and unjust. This is very impractical in a real scenario where every individual not only does what they think they are good at but also has many other factors associated with their jobs. These may be the pay, the convenience, the quality of life, etc. Based on these factors a person decides their job in reality. It is also very common to see people shuffling between jobs for extra pay. This is unacceptable in Plato’s just society and thus very impractical.

In Plato’s society, there is a concept of the guardian class that is supposed to guide the other individuals. They rule the state and are called ‘philosopher kings’ Even though Plato explains that these philosopher kings are driven by knowledge and not by power it is very impractical to assume that in a real-life political scenario the ruler will not be tempted by power. This idea is fit for a Utopian structure but in practical execution, there are high chances that this class may want to establish hegemony over the state. Since there is no legal structure the powers of the philosopher kings cannot be kept in check which can be very dangerous.

Another major drawback that can be seen in Plato’s idea of philosopher kings is that philosophers, even though might be extremely intellectual and knowledgeable may not be best suited for politics and ruling. They may not be able to deal with situations of crisis and pressure as well as someone who has interest and proficiency in the political arena can. A philosopher can be given the role of a guide to the ruler, the one that gives advice and information but does not take decisions as that requires political knowledge and not the knowledge of philosophy.

Plato views individuals as part of the state and not as their own selves that possess different characteristics. Every human is bound to have emotions of jealousy, selfishness, and betrayal. These features may make an individual unreasonable and make them want to destroy the work of other individuals. But Plato completely overlooks this and does not view individuals with human attributes.

Conclusion

Thus, after clearly explaining the nature of justice proposed by Plato and the concept of a ‘just state’ and a ‘just individual’ and performing a critical evaluation of the same I conclude that the concept of justice proposed by Plato is suitable for a utopian society where no one indulges in conflicts and disagreements and all the individuals are specialized in one thing or the other. They are all driven by their morality and need no law to guide them. This view of justice as a human virtue cannot be applied in real-world scenarios because every individual is guided by several human emotions of jealousy, power hunger, betrayal, etc. These characteristics will lead to instability in Plato’s ideal state.

References

1. Bhandari, D. (n.d.). Plato's Concept Of Justice: An Analysis.
2. Bhandari, D. (n.d.). Plato's Concept Of Justice: An Analysis. Paideia.
3. Mishra, I. N. (2018, august 25). Plato’s Theory of Justice. Countercurrents.
4. tanwar, s. (n.d.). Plato’s Theories: Theory of Justice, Education, and Communism.
5. tanwar, s. (n.d.). Plato’s Theories: Theory of Justice, Education, and Communism. political science.
6. Wright, C. C. (2012). Plato’s Just State. © Philosophy Now 2020.