How The Republic defines justice
Plato wrote The Republic with the idea of defining justice and its characteristics in a precise manner, hoping to eliminate all discrepancies and misunderstandings once and for all. According to Plato, justice is the action of carrying out one’s duties as he is fitted with. In fact, according to Socratic teachings, if one is lying or stealing and such acts are required in order to fulfil their duties, then they too, are just in nature.
Such a definition of justice had never been seen before The Republic came to be. While he may have gone down in history as one of the greatest and most influential philosophers of all time, Socrates never really wrote down any of his teachings. It was Plato, his friend and student, who did so of his own accord, for his master, the most ‘just’ human being he had ever met. While we can’t prove that all these stories come from Socrates himself, we can put our faith in Plato for doing justice to his teacher and his work. Being just, to Plato(and Socrates) is so important that in the book, Socrates argues that everyone is better off being just than unjust. Yes, not a single person is better off avoiding their duties no matter the reason. When Glaucon claims that to be untrue, he puts forward a most interesting point. Glaucon claims that the unjust man is almost always better off. An unjust man sweet talks his way up the hierarchal ladder of success. He lies, steals and cheats. In the end, he is corrupt but rich, evil but respected, a liar but believed. Socrates then answers by giving an argument that justice is innately good and injustice is innately evil and thus, the unjust man is always unhappy and the just man is always happy. He goes about proving his point by starting off with defining justice first. He explains how everything has a natural virtue and so does the soul. He talks about how, if philosophers were to guide a nation as its rulers, the nation would be truly just and hence, truly happy. He constructs one such nation on the spot, explaining all the members and their responsibilities. He explains what such a republic would be like and why it’d be a happy and satisfied place. Philosophers, he said, have knowledge and wisdom. These qualities are the most necessary when it comes to guiding a nation. An orator of great knowledge and wisdom, talks not in the interest of himself but of his listeners.
The Republic shows us that when the question of justice is raised, it is an arduous but necessary task to pay great attention to the ordinary opinions. Students of philosophy or social/clinical psychology often have very unassailable views about justice. Such people often disregard any counter-arguments they are presented with. A thorough and dedicated reading of Plato’s works can greatly benefit such people, as these works show modern philosophers how to argue and how to take criticism well. For example, Glaucon’s disregard for people and his view of them being ‘hypocrites’ who praised justice only because of the rewards that came with upholding it, is met with some brilliant counter arguments by Socrates, but the result is still an impasse. Such disagreements help in understanding and reflection on moral issues.
