Plato's Republic: Is Justice Inherently Good To Have?
Socrates’ Just Soul as explained through The Just City.
Questioning whether justice is something inherently good to have, Glaucon and Plato’s brother Adeimantus ask Socrates to explain his perspective in the context of what it means for an individual to be actively invested in a life worth living.
As with many Socratic answers and allegories, he chooses to explain his line of thinking through the use of an exterior example, in this case political justice as embodied in the self-governmental structure of a community (or polis / city). Through his hypothesis that it’s easier to live amongst others than apart, with the necessary work for survival divided between all participants, he proposes that the work required still needs to essentially be defended, and more importantly, must also be appropriately resourced.
”…in the larger the quantity of justice is likely to be larger and more easily discernible. I propose therefore that we enquire into the nature of justice and injustice, first as they appear in the State, and secondly in the individual, proceeding from the greater to the lesser and comparing them.”
In working through his hypothesis to Adeimantus and Glaucon, he explains that there are three basic functions of any state, and that the harmonius relationship between all three constitute the necessary dynamics for a just political society. He states that there are Guardians (the rulers and decision makers), Auxilliaries (the military) and the Producers (the money makers). He later explains to a shocked Glaucon that the rulers must be philosophers, something he goes on to explain through his theory of forms.
Each act as a means of checks and balances for each other, but with the rulers ultimately ensuring that everyone stays in their own lane and focuses on their own tactical execution. Socrates’ makes a number of assumptions here around who might be deemed fit or unfit to be in charge, arguing that the ‘natural qualifications’ for each group are something to be considered in ensuring that everyone is representing their respective area in a productive way. This is different from the tripartite structure of executive, legislative and representative government we have today, which strongly enforces those checks and balances, but holds dangerous parallels around the abuse of power and where the ruling class can become unjust.
”…if we imagine the State in process of creation, we shall see the justice and injustice of the State in process of creation also.”
In transitioning his argument from that of the polis to that of the self, Socrates proposes that an individual has the same internal workings as that of the just city. He explains that a body has a part to rule (that which decides what’s right or wrong, exercises morals, and sees the bigger picture), a part to defend and help (that displays anger, emotion and aggression), and a part that’s only fit to be ruled (our desires, appetites, needs and wants, as well as our likes and dislikes). These three he draws a correlation to in the part to rule (Guardians), the part to help (Auxiliaries), and the part only fit to be ruled (Producing Class). In a sense Socrates is attempting to anthropomorphize the city in order to make his hypothesis more relatable and stronger to his audience. These three constituent parts form an individual’s soul (psuche, or spirit).
In an individual, while Socrates still proposes that the body is ruled by reason, there is more of a sense of checks and balances internally, with the body being able to have reason judge when appetites or emotions can and should be experienced. But when there are conflicts between the 3 constituent parts, this is when the soul of an unjust person begins to be formed. The conflict results from reason not being able to control the desires, emotions or morals of an individual. Thus, he argues, the undesirable or dysfunctional condition of the psyche is ultimately injustice. A body which is perpetually in conflict with itself.
By contrast, a high functioning and harmonius person, one that is in control and not in conflict, just like that of a just city, has a psychology that is equally just. And again in drawing a parallel with the city, each part of the tripartite should expressly not meddle with another. Going further, he also argues that justice is not something one can own, or trade by comparative value, but is truly a necessary condition for good. We cannot harmoniously enjoy the trappings of wealth and power without it. Or as Socrates also expresses, we cannot live with a ruined soul.
So in conclusion, Socrates argues, through the example of the just city, and the just soul, that injustice is a condition of a soul in turmoil, and by extension, justice is always preferable to injustice. In short, it is never a good idea to be unjust.
