The Necessity of Justice - Essay Example

The Necessity of Justice The main project of Plato’s Republic consists of finding the definition, in an absolute sense, of the concept of justice—a notion in the Ancient Greek world widely believed to be a cardinal virtue along with temperance, moderation, prudence, and so on. With its central place among these other noble characteristics, it is no surprise how much importance Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, and others ascribed to justice in the formation of a complete system of morality and an Ideal State. Plato, in fact, identifies justice not simply as something related to government, but something which essentially gives structure to the lives of individuals and to society as well. In this sense, justice is instrumental to both ethical and political philosophy—the practical sciences—and guides them both. However, the inevitable question comes about from Thrasymachus, who asks “what if one can get away with being unjust?” Socrates answer essentially comes in the following: “those who practice justice do it unwillingly, because they lack the power to do injustice.” To rephrase, because justice is a virtue, it is a characteristic of one’s psyche, or a way of perceiving the world, and it simply comes naturally when one reacts to certain situations. Accordingly, if all members of a given society possessed the virtue of justice, the society would be just, which, as will be argued here, necessary for the formation of a functional society. But the problem remains: what if a man can act unjustly and not suffer any consequences? Indeed, if given the change, people would act upon such an opportunity, disobeying common moral principles. Glaucon resorts to a fantastical thought experiment wherein two magic rings are produced and given to man. His story describes the rings of magic that make men indivisible whenever they are placed on his finger. Glaucon, in the process of helping Socrates build his Ideal State, proposes that each and every human being would conduct himself in a similar manner given this amazing power. They would, according to him, both break into houses unseen and help themselves to whatever they fancied. Freed of legal and social responsibility (the invisibility of the Ring of Gyges represents immunity from justice), any man could not, and so would not, feel any need for the virtue of justice. Glaucon’s position then becomes one of pessimism: the just man is only just insofar as he possesses a fear of the consequences of his actions in terms of potential punishments, whether these punishments are inflicted upon him physically or in reputation. That is, justice is not desirable in itself. Instead, according to Thrasymachus’ view, it is actually to an individual’s disadvantage to act justly. As he understands it, just behavior works to the advantage of other people, not to the person who behaves justly: justice is merely a restraint on man’s natural desire for more. Socrates chooses to answer Glaucon’s Ring of Gyges objection with a two-fold distinction between political justice (justice of the state) and individual justice (justice of the man). Plato supposed that people exhibit the same features and perform the same functions that states do; thus, states that one should rather “proceed from the greater to the lesser and compare them.” From here, Socrates develops the Ideal State from scratch, introducing first the concept of specialization, a principle which holds that each individual must do those things for which he is naturally best fit. In Plato’s words, “One man does one thing which is natural to him and does it at the right time, and leaves other things.” Therefore, society is comprised of many distinct parts that fulfill certain functions in the context of the state. Nevertheless, Plato points out individuals are always confronted with choices about what to do, as well as impulse which could direct their attention away from their designated task. The Guardians, for Plato, make up the “justice system”—a system which displays the more exemplary qualities and skills of all citizens. They must be carefully selected: they must have the correct inner being—not too tough and not to weak and feeble. In the context of the Guardian class, Plato raises the issue of education. Plato’s fundamental principle of education is that the mind—or “soul”—can possess, much like the body, one of two states: healthy or unhealthy. And like the body, the state of the soul is contingent upon what it consumes. In order to control what the soul consumes, not only educational practices have to be controlled, but cultural practices as well. In addition to the formation of an effective justice system, education possesses a major role in the maintenance of order and harmony in the state. Plato’s conception of education is largely consistent with his view of man’s nature: something analogous to a bird (a soul, like a fallen angel) trapped in a birdcage (the body), and trying to seek perfection once more1. Plato’s development of an Original Sin-like doctrine leads him to think that, as humans, we all need limits. Adam and Eve, in the book of Genesis, similarly need certain limitations in what actions they can perform. They were informed not to eat from a specific tree, but without any concern or awareness of the punishment consumed the apple and introduced to the world the concepts of sin, pain and pleasure. “Only true justice brings happiness,” says Socrates, belaboring the point that true happiness sometimes includes abstaining from normal pleasures, knowing in the end that the happiness accomplished would satisfy the lack of such. Education, for Plato, is the establishment of these limits and the justice system—the Guardians—are the enforcement of these limits. In the context of Plato’s construction of the Ideal State (and of human nature), the necessity of justice follows from the premises. However, what if human beings do not actually require limits? What if they are naturally good beings? So far, Socrates has answered the objections of Thrasymachus and Glaucon, who proposed that either justice is not in the individual’s self-interest or, more strongly, it is precisely disadvantageous for the individual. In response to this, Socrates would have a much more straightforward task. What is “good” (morally speaking)? Good, to Socrates, is the possession of the virtues—virtues which shape an individual’s experience of reality and cause him to act ethically. Incidentally, justice (individual justice) is a virtue. Arguing this syllogistically, if justice is a virtue, and having the virtues is “good” (morally speaking), then if one is “good”, then he necessarily has the virtue of being just. So, in either case, where many is (according to Plato) naturally in need of limits, or naturally not in need of limits, “true justice” remains necessary for “happiness”. When we concretize Socrates’ “Ideal State” in the form of an individual human being, going from political justice to individual justice, we deduce the same conclusion: justice is unconditionally necessary, either for happiness in the individual, or, analogously, the prosperity of the state. Indeed, if no judicial system existed in our society, it would proceed to fall apart. In a democratic country such as the United States of America, a structured society remains bound by the limitations set for the happiness of its citizens, and can thus maintain an appropriate level of political justice. We can further integrate the line Socrates draws between individual and political justice by noticing that the individual and the state must work together to accomplish happiness and justice. The state, being nothing but a collection of individuals—bound by a common interest—presupposes the willingness of its citizens to be just in order for society as a whole to be just as well. As long as people obey the laws, set forth by their state, in an orderly and civil manner, the community is able to remain peaceful and stable, which, contra Thrasymachus, ends up being in the individual’s best interests. Being just is not solely aimed at the good of others, but is ultimately contingent on one’s wish to live in a stable and peaceful society. A morality of virtue helps only to foster these values and in a society where all individuals exercise the virtue of being just, the society as a whole is just—not because people desire justice itself, but the happiness which justice entails. Read More