Introduction
Plato is a prominent Athenian philosopher of the 4th century BC, the founding father of the Platonist school of thought, and the teacher of Aristotle. Plato’s works are dedicated to such topics as ethics, justice, theology, and political philosophy. In the most well-known writing Republic, Plato analyzes the issue of justice and tries to define it and answer the question of whether it is better to be just or unjust if one can escape punishment. For this philosopher, justice is the source of an individual’s strength and harmony. Thus, a person should strive to be just in every circumstance. The present essay disagrees with the idea proclaimed by Plato and argues that his vision of the problem is idealized and is not adapted to reality.
Main body
To begin with, it is necessary to define the concept of justice. In Plato’s philosophy, just equaling being obedient to the laws. What is more, justice is the duty of the soul and the way to achieve harmony between the mind and body, thoughts and actions. As it has already been mentioned, the argument of the issue of justice is presented in Republic, the book that was created in 375 BC. It is interesting to notice that this book is written in the style of a dialogue between the teacher of Plato, Socrates, and Athenian philosophers, including Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, and Glaucon, to name but a few. In this text, Socrates, who is better be viewed not as a real philosopher but only as a character, represents Plato’s viewpoints.
Plato’s position on the question of being just could be illustrated by the dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon. Glaucon is skeptical that justice is an ultimate good under any circumstances and finds Socrates’s claim that “it is better in every way to be just rather than unjust” unpersuasive (Plato 357b). For Plato, in his turn, it just means being a wise and happy person (Plato 349b, 352d). Besides, in Plato’s philosophy, the concept of justice implies that every person strictly performs the assigned duties.
More precisely, guardians govern the state, soldiers ensure the state’s security and defend it, and the representatives of the lowest class of society grow food and produce goods and services. A society that operates in such a manner could be regarded as a perfect one. In it, all people are just, live in harmony with themselves, act wisely and feel satisfied with their life.
From the written above, it could be inferred that even if a person committed a crime or made a crucial mistake, he should not act as if he had not done something wrong. To be just and live in balance, the rational aspect of a person’s soul should control appetitive and spirited ones (Plato 444e). This way, a person who acts unjustly severely harms himself because he destroys the balance between actions and thoughts and violates the proper way of things. Consequently, it is better to be just and suffer punishment for the preceding wrongdoing and to be unjust and escape the punishment (Plato 359a). Overall, the argument presented by Plato is based on the assumption that a person is willing to achieve and maintain balance in the soul and to do as he is supposed to act regardless of feelings and circumstances.
The most evident counterargument to the position presented by Plato in Republic is that the world is versatile, people face different situations and hardships, and, in some cases, it is a necessity to be unjust. It might sound pathetic but imagine a situation when a poor person stole food to feed the children, and this theft was not noticed. Following the logic proclaimed by Plato, this person should go to the police, confess to the deed, and suffer the corresponding punishment because acting this way is just. However, the problem is that this confession will entail even greater torment for this thief. This person might be wise, rational, good, and honest, but the unfortunate coincidence forced him to act unjustly.
The argument presented above could be backed up by quoting Glaucon’s and Thrasymachus’s views on the issue of justice. In the debate with Socrates, Thrasymachus claims that being just under all possible circumstances is the destiny of strong people (Plato 338c). Still, in this case, Thrasymachus is talking not about moral strength but about belonging to the ruling elite. At the same time, rules should be morally strong to govern effectively and make rational decisions. Hence, the statement of Thrasymachus could be interpreted as saying that absolute justice is not inherent to ordinary weak people.
Another interlocutor of Socrates, Glaucon, alleges the reasoning that resembles the ones of Thrasymachus. More precisely, Glaucon defends the idea that injustice is natural and unavoidable. For Glaucon, it is madness to comply for violating the laws or committing a crime (Plato 359b). What is more, a person might abide by the rules and confess to being unjust, but the driving force will be not sincere aspiration but fear, cowardice, or old age (Plato 366d). These viewpoints seem to be more reasonable and correspond with the complex human nature and the life of people in the real world, not a perfect one.
To respond to the aforementioned positions, Plato, via the character of Socrates, says that people live in society and depend on each other. As a result of this, they have little choice but to trust each other and, in turn, act in the way that they are expected, i.e., be always just. In other words, justice could be regarded as a fundamental necessity. The analysis of worldviews proclaimed by Socrates and his collocutors reveals that all of them view people from different perspectives. In Socrates’s philosophy, people should rely on the justness of others because none of them is self-sufficient, whereas, for such personalities as Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus, any individual could rely on himself exclusively. This way, from the latter point of view, injustice is the way to survive and retain a public image of a good person.
At this point, it is essential to notice that the idea that a person has a right to be unjust leads to chaos because no one could ever be sure of what to expect from a colleague, a neighbor, or even a friend. Nonetheless, the strong side of such a view is that people are aware that another person might do something wrong without telling anyone of the deed, while in Socrates’s world, people are expected to trust each other.
Conclusion
To conclude, Plato does a great job of formulating and defending the argument on justice and injustice. However, even though his arguments are logical, they seem to be merely theoretical and inapplicable to the harsh reality. Certain circumstances force people to act unjustly precisely because their deed remains undetected and unpunished. It is more critical for them to retain the public image or escape disclosure of some secrets than to be just and confess the misconduct.
Work Cited
Plato. Republic. Translated by C. D. C. Reeve, Hackett Publishing Company, 2004.