The Highest Good and Justice: The Role of Philosophy - Essay Example

The Highest Good and Justice: The Role of Philosophy Introduction One of the main attractions of Socrates in Plato’s Republic was his constant focuson issues of immediate relevance to man both individually and in a larger social context. Rather than addressing issues of a metaphysical nature, he instead dealt with questions and concerns that impacted people’s lives more directly and more concretely. Though his teaching style was deliberately coy he was able to cultivate a set of responses that was consistent with his notion of a highest good and justice for both individuals and for society more generally. In addition, rather than relying on theological arguments, he chose instead to rely on human reason and logic to guide his ethical inquiries. These two characteristics, the concern for practical applications of his philosophy and the use of reason to supplant theological directives, distinguished Socrates. His was an attempt to teach people how to better define the highest good, how to attain justice, and therefore how to attain happiness both individually and socially. This essay will examine Socrates’ notions of a highest good and justice, his linking of the individual and society through an integrated philosophical approach, and the implications of different choices regarding public administration and public order. The Highest Good and the Role of Philosophy As a preliminary matter, it is important to note that Socrates’ teachings were most directed at the individual. The highest good, therefore, was a condition that each individual was capable of attaining; however, this highest good could only be known through reason and a knowledge of one’s self. Socrates equated this highest good with knowledge and happiness. Significantly, though, he went to great lengths to distinguish true happiness from illusory pursuits of happiness. He did this by drawing distinctions between absolute levels of ignorance and fancy ideals of true knowledge. These distinctions, often grounded in Socrates’ claims that he knew nothing, provided the intellectual framework for subsequently exploring ultimate questions of goodness, justice, and proper forms of public administration. In effect, he tore down common assumptions, challenged certain modes of thinking, and in the process attempted to redefine both the proper focus and method of philosophical inquiry as well as the practical application of philosophy to man’s life and to social affairs. Central to man’s pursuit of happiness was the intellectual process by which he confronted choices and made decisions. In many ways, Socrates reduced the highest good to a decision-making process in which a noble existence was chosen rather than succumbing to false inducements often coloured with pleasure. He believed in a form of objective happiness, linking it ultimately to justice, “I think justice belongs in the best class of good, that which should be loved for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences by anyone who is going to be blessed” (358a1-3). Here in this passage, Socrates refers to a best good; the implication is that there are degrees of goodness and that a highest good is the ideal. Further, he refers to justice as one part of this best class of good; the other parts are an objective state of happiness, an honest and objective knowledge of one’s self, and an ability to know what is necessary and unnecessary. An individual that knows his limits is far wiser and more virtuous than a man that pursues goals beyond his means or in contravention of his own objective happiness. In short, the highest good is an objective happiness attained through the philosophical process of reason. Knowledge is crucial to this inquiry, and both the highest good and justice are dependent on Socrates’ philosophical approach. Relationship of Highest Good to Justice Socrates’ belief in a highest good, while a reasoning process that was focused on the individual, was also used to discuss larger issues of social organization and policy. This expansion into the realm of society more generally was accomplished through the concept of justice. Interestingly, rather than severing the philosophical process, Socrates instead advocated a singular definition of justice which applied to both the individual and to the larger city-state of his time. A careful reading suggests that justice is a consequence of reason, knowledge, and reconciliation. At the individual level, reason was used to reconcile the three disparate part’s of an individual’s soul. These parts of the soul, as outlined by Socrates, were reason, spirit and desire. The most disruptive parts, the ones that led to false pursuits of happiness, were spirit and desire. It was necessary, if a just man was to prevail, that man used his reason in order to tame or reconcile the spirit and the desire. As stated by Socrates, the rational part of the soul “has in it the knowledge of what is advantageous for each part and for the whole in common of the three parts” (442c5-8). Reason thus resides in the soul, as does knowledge, and is called upon by each individual in an effort to control the spirit and the desire in an effort to know justice and to become just. The just person acts virtuously in all circumstances and this is accomplished through the philosophical process of reason and distinguishing true knowledge from false allures. At the social level, a similar philosophical approach was encouraged. Nowhere in Plato’s account was Socrates reported to have advocated what we now know as democracy; quite the contrary, as he did with the individual, Socrates carved out a city-state inhabited by three distinct types of people. These three types were the people that loved wisdom, the people that functioned as auxiliaries, and the workers. An individual was deemed just when his reason ruled his spirit and his desire; for Socrates, a society or a city-state was deemed just when it was ruled and administered by the lovers of wisdom rather than the auxiliaries or the workers. Implicit in this approach was a firm belief that certain individuals were more suited to certain tasks. The lovers of wisdom, just men themselves who knew how to obtain the highest good, would rule and the auxiliaries and workers would be left to fulfill their tasks without any responsibility for ruling. What results, ironically enough, is an hierarchally-ordered society. This, however, would not appear to trouble Socrates because the philosophers administering the city-state would know the highest good, would be just themselves, and would use this knowledge and this individual justice for public administration. A man unable to understand the highest good, a man that is unable to use reason to tame his spirit and his desire, is therefore best suited to life as a guardian or a worker. And guardians and workers have no place in the public administration of the city-state. Socrates accepts as perfectly natural the fact that not all people can know the highest good and become just. His ideal city-state, in this way, reflects an accommodation to the extant that individuals are different in both capacity and attainment. Implications for Citizens and Public Order The implications for citizens and for public order seem harmless enough to Socrates, though they would most certainly raise eyebrows in many societies today. At the individual level, citizens are herded into one of three classes. For Socrates, this is both necessary and desirable. He treats the allocation of citizens as ruler and ruled as a sort of logical precondition for creating a unified city-state (462ab) and a society which is bound together in the most just of all possible amalgamations (519e-520a). The reality, and one which Socrates seems to acknowledge freely enough, is that a caste system of sorts has been created. Will workers accept this type of rule? Will their children be able to escape the worker class in the future? Will their spirit and desire override their reason and lead to conflict? Where the ruled do not know the highest good, where the ruled are characterised by varying degrees of unjust behavior, is it possible to harmonise the social classes advocated by Socrates. The implications for public order seem ominous. Public order, in the final analysis, depends on satisfying the needs and desires of the governed, the use of force, or some combination thereof. Socrates, however, has acknowledged that not all citizens will understand the highest good or be able to use their reason to control their spirit and desire. True, the just ruler will not be tempted by corruption; reason will trump desire or spirit in this respect. But the question of public order is no so much concerned with the enlightened rulers as with the governed. They are auxiliaries and workers either because they do not understand that reason can tame spirit and desire or because they are unable or unwilling to use their reason towards the ends advocated by Socrates. Conflict would seem to be inevitable. The only question is how much conflict is inevitable and how do just leaders maintain public order. Socrates does not answer this question so well and he does not answer it very specifically; instead, he explains how not to maintain public order by elaborating upon and illustrating certain defective social arrangements such as aristocracy (545c ff), timocracy (550c ff), oligarchy (555b ff), democracy (562a ff), and tyranny (562a ff). The essence of Socrates’ critiques is consistent with his notions of the highest good and the just man and the just ruler. These forms of social and political organization were defective because reason did not rule the soul, because unjust men were placed in positions of leadership and public administration, and because there was little or no harmony among the citizens. These examples, however, do not answer how public order is to be maintained in Socrates’ ideal society other than a leap of faith that such disparate souls and interests can be reconciled and harmonised through just and wise leadership. It sounds beautiful, but the inherent contradictions among the classes of the citizenry, would appear to bode ill for a society premised upon such views. Conclusions In conclusion, there is much to be praised. Socrates rejects theological directives, he advocates a philosophical process that teaches man to think individually, and he defines concepts such as a highest good, justice and public service in terms that stress ethical behavior and self-sacrifice. There is little to take issue with in these respects. From an individual point of view, his counsel seems wise and valuable. The problems arise when Socrates moves from the individual to society more generally. By creating, in effect, a caste system he is stratifying society. Worse, he acknowledges that the lower castes, the auxiliaries and the workers, may not understand or accept the social organization into which there are to be placed. He instead assumes that just rulers can persuade or govern in such a manner as to tame or restrain the wayward spirits and desires. In my view, this is a contradictory social structure and idealism has its limitations. References Read More