Introduction
In the book “The Republic,” Plato provides the modern worn with some insights about the life and leadership styles used in ancient Greek society. The most prominent antagonist to Socrates, Thrasymachus, was an ancient Greek philosopher and professional teacher. In the book, Thrasymachus is one of the older sophists, together with Critias, Gorgias, Hippias, Protagoras, and Antiphon. In his view, justice should serve as an advantage for the stronger men in society. As a sophist, he believes that personal benefits are more important than the moral issues of wrong and right. As a character in the book, Thrasymachus questions Socrates and his methods of teaching (Plato 37). He adds that he can only provide answers on the definition of justice on the condition that he is paid. Thrasymachus further states that people in power make laws, and their subjects are only supposed to follow the rules and not question or object. Based on this view, the aim of this paper is to examine how different philosophers viewed the concepts of leadership, ethics, and morals in their society.
The Philosophical Competition between the Sophists and Natural Philosophers
Socrates rejects Thrasymachus’ view of justice, stating that rulers are subject to make bad laws that do not serve their interests. Thrasymachus refutes, saying that a ruler cannot make mistakes, which means he might make right. Socrates objects and demonstrates that as a ruler, one’s chief interest should be the interest of his subjects (Plato 158). He uses an example of a physician whose interest should constantly be improving the health and wellbeing of his patients. A physician, according to Socrates, receives fees for his work, but that means that he is also an earner like any other person. Similarly, a ruler can receive a living wage for his creation of leading his subjects even though his main objective is to rule the people.
From a personal point of view, Socrates’ definition of justice is the best as it aligns with morals in leadership. In essence, Socrates’ point of view is that rulers should lead by examples and be guided by the vision to improve the welfare of their society. However, some people still believe in Thrasymachus’s point of view, especially in organizations and even countries where authoritarian rule is justified (Plato 181). In these cases, the rulers are believed to be always right and cannot make wrong decisions, which means that the subjects are expected to obey their rulers and the laws that they establish.
From a personal opinion, there is no absolute just country in the world because all nations have laws and rules that serve the interest of both the rulers and the subjects to a certain extent. Moreover, no country has established regulations and laws that entirely help the interest of the people. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify the most just nations in the world based on the democracy index, a scale for measuring the state of democracy for all the 167 countries and territories around the globe (Fasting and Sorensen 28). Democracy indices developed by various groups have shown that Norway has consistently led other nations in terms of democracy for years. In 2020, Norway had a democracy index of 9.81 out of 10.0, ahead of Iceland (9.37) and Sweden (9.26) (Fasting and Sorensen 28). Consequently, it is arguable that Norway is the most just country in the world.
According to Socrates’ view of the just city, a good society provides happiness to its people. The rulers should be guardians whose function is to defend just life, ensure human satisfaction, education, knowledge, the structure of reality, virtues and morals, women’s affairs, art, and even the afterlife. In his view, there should be no laws but only institutions and goodwill of the people, which can help the city achieve these objectives (Plato 193). Norway is comparable with the City in Speech that Socrates hypothesizes.
There are similarities because both are democratic societies whose objective is to achieve the general wellbeing of their citizens and protect their rights and freedoms to make them happy. However, unlike the City in Speech, the sovereign state of Norway is a monarch with a king and elected leaders, a Constitution and other laws, and citizens who must follow these laws (Fasting and Sorensen 17). Socrates does not support the idea of developing a city with a large population because it might become difficult or impossible to achieve the objectives, which is contrary to the case of Norway that has a population of more than five million people. Therefore, Socrates might support the structure that Norway has instituted to some extent because its objective is to achieve the general wellbeing and happiness of the people. But he might say that it is not the ideal City in Speech because it has instituted monarchy, leaders who have personal interests, and a large population.
Conclusion
It is possible for an individual to have morally repugnant personal views but hold admirable political views. Ethics are external, such as codes of ethics or rules that a person must follow in a social setting. On the contrary, morality is internal and defined by personal beliefs about right and wrong. Therefore, the vice-versa is also possible as one can hold admirable personal views but have repugnant political views. In the City-Soul Analogy, Socrates states that a just person is better than an unjust individual. Therefore, a person who has morals but holds repugnant personal views can be said to be just because he follows morality even though he does not believe in it. On the contrary, a person who has no morals but has admirable political views can be unjust because he does not follow the rules or ethics.
Works Cited
Fasting, Mathilde, and Oystein Sorensen. The Norwegian Exception?: Norway’s Liberal Democracy since 1814. Hurst Publishers, 2021.
Plato. The Republic. Probhat Prakashan, 2021.