Plato's Reply to Glaucon's First Objection that Justice Is No More than a Compromise - Term Paper Example

Plato’s reply to Glaucon’s ?rst objection, that Justice is no more than a Compromise The word "justice" appears in many of the United States' most important documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance. But for a word that's used so often, its precise definition is still a topic of debate for philosophers, theologians and legislators (Edmonds) It is difficult to define justice in few words because of the different perceptions and understandings associated with justice by different people. Politicians interpret justice in one way and sociologists and philosophers interpret it in another way. Different religions and different cultures have different views about justice. For example, capital punishment is an accepted way of punishing criminals in some of the most advanced societies like United Sates. However, it is prohibited in many other countries. Buddhists do believe that killing of a person or an animal under any circumstances is an inhuman and injustice act whereas some other communities do believe that killing of enemies of their culture or community is an acceptable act. In short, justice is interpreted in different ways by different people. Plato has argued that justice is no more than compromise as a reply to Glaucon’s first objection. This paper critically analyses the claims of Plato. “For Glaucon, stripping him of everything but his justice simply equates to removing his reputation and all the good things which accrue to him from that. Any good he achieves is another’s good, and why should anyone care about that” (Brown, p.54). Glaucon argued that one of the major consequences of justice is happiness. In other words, granting of justice will make a person happier at the expense of another person. For example, suppose capital punishment is provided to a criminal who brutally raped a female. This punishment may give happiness to the victim even though it provides displeasure to the offender. In other words, justice can be provided only at the expense of another person according to the views of Glaucon. In response to Glaucon’s argument, Plato replied that justice is no more than a compromise. In other words, justice is a compromise between good and evil. It should be noted that "in any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit” (The Nature of Compromise). In other words, the ultimate beneficiary of a compromise would be the evil force. If we analyse Plato’s argument in that sense, justice will provide more benefits to the offender than the victim. Plato's answer lies in his account of the virtuous soul. The soul is a complex entity. Reflection will show that the best state of a complex is harmony. That can only occur in the soul when each part has and does its own - when reason rules and the other parts are subdued. Thus, as the health of the body, intrinsically desirable, is physical order, so the health of the soul is psychic harmony - and that is happiness. However, order in the soul is exactly like order in the State – and it is justice. The harmonious soul, then, is the just (virtuous) soul, where reason rules. Such an internal disposition is happiness, which is immune from the invasions of luck (Mackenzie, p.89). In Plato’s opinion, happiness has different dimensions. He has pointed out that happiness is highly subjective since it is associated with physical and mental factors. Health of a body is a physical order whereas happiness is a mental order according to Plato. For example, social recognition provides mental happiness whereas consumption of better foods will keep our body healthy. In the first case, our soul will become happy whereas in the second case, our body will become happy. It should be noted that human is believed to be the product of body and soul. It is definite that body cannot stay without its driving force soul whereas the survival of soul without body is controversial. “By acting justly, people fulfil their purpose. The ultimate goal of any system is to act in harmony with the rest of the universe; justice is indeed good for its own sake” (Platonic Justice). The above argument emphasizes the importance of harmony while distributing justice. Harmony can be obtained only through a compromise. It should be noted that no two individuals are alike and therefore no two individuals may think and act in the same manner. The rights of one may not be the rights of the other. For example, some religions do believe that a male can have more than one wife whereas other religions argue that having sexual relations with more than one female is a sin. In other words, justice is perceived differently by different communities as far as marriage is concerned. If we take Plato’s argument seriously, we allow all the communities to keep their beliefs with respect to marriage intact. In other words, a compromise is necessary to keep the entire population living in harmony as per the arguments of Plato. “We must remove the just person’s reputation for justice, for otherwise ‘it will not be clear whether his motive for being just was a desire for justice or a desire for the rewards and the recognition” (Brown, p.55). Some people argue that motives are important while segregating the actions of a person as just and unjust. The actions may appear as just in the surface level whereas in the grass root level these actions may cause damages to others. For example, there are politicians who propose many infrastructure development projects. In the surface level, people may accept these actions as just since it is the duty of the politicians work for the wellbeing of the society. However, it is quite possible that politicians may propose these projects for committing corruption. In other words the motives of the politicians while proposing different projects could be unjust even though it appears as just in the surface level. At the same time, a society cannot neglect the proposals form politicians simply because of the possibility of corruption. Instead of neglecting the proposals completely, society should ensure that the politicians may not take advantage of the proposed projects at the expense of the society. In short, a compromise is definitely necessary while segregating an action as just or unjust. According to Plato; An ideal society starts by fulfilling ordinary human needs, but its aim is perfect harmony, which is achieved by having the most intellectually able citizens in charge. Then, if each part of society just plays its role correctly, the whole society works like a well-oiled machine (Moral Theory Before Aristotle) Plato believed that an action can be referred as a moral activity if it is backed by reasons. In other words, if the activity of a person for achieving fame or happiness could be justified if it is backed by genuine reasons. At the same time Plato keeps a silence about the issue of the consequences of one’s action upon others. An individual’s action can spoil the interest of another individual even if it is backed by genuine reasons. For example, a poor man can justify his action of robbery with the help of Plato’s principles with respect to morality and justice. In an unjust society wealth distribution is uneven and therefore a thief can justify his actions based on Plato’s moral principles. However, it should be noted that the thief is stealing the property of another person who earned it through hard work. Thus, achieving social justice at the expense of another person is a kind of compromise as per the views of Plato. “Plato saw man's true nature as rational and believed that civilized society must be organized, and civilized life conducted according to rational principles” (Genre - Philosophical or Socratic Dialogue). Plato formulated his moral principles based on the assumption that man is a rational animal and his every action would be motivated by rational elements. That is why he proposed that justice is a compromise. He thought that all people will think rationally and therefore a compromise to distribute justice may not bring any harm in the society. However, some people believe that human thinking consists of both rational and irrational elements. For example, there are many instances in which people think irrationally to take vengeance upon enemies. The recent Iraq war is perceived as an unjust action performed because of irrational thinking. United Sates engaged in a terrific war with Iraq accusing Iraq for the possession weapons of mass destruction. Even after the execution of their leader, Americans failed to seize any weapons of mass destruction from Iraqi soil which clearly shows that Iraq war was motivated by irrational thinking. It should be noted that millions of innocent Iraqis suffered a lot because of America’s efforts to provide justice to the global community by destroying Iraq. There are many people in the world who believe that Iraq war was not for the declared reasons; but for taking vengeance for the earlier humiliation America suffered from Iraq’s hands. To conclude, many people of the current generation are of the view that Plato’s argument that justice is a kind of compromise may not be suitable to the current world. There are many others who believe that instead of treating as a compromise, justice should be treated as moral rightness based on rationality. Works Cited Brown, Lesley. “Glaucon’s Challenge, Rational Egoism and Ordinary Morality”. 2002. Web. 26 October 2011. Edmonds, Molly. “What is Justice?”. 2011. Web. 26 October 2011. “Genre - Philosophical or Socratic Dialogue”.2000. Web. 26 October 2011. Mackenzie, Mary Margaret. Plato’s Moral Theories”. 1985. Journal of Medical Ethics. 1985, 11, 88-91. Web. 26 October 2011. “Moral Theory Before Aristotle”. Web. 26 October 2011. “Platonic Justice”. Web. 26 October 2011. “The Nature of Compromise”. Web. 26 October 2011. Read More