Platonic Justice

JUSTÐ"ÑœCE FOR ALL

Plato, who began his philosophical career as a student of the Socrates, is in the pursuit of showing the weaknesses of where he lived-Athens-.

He attacks Ð''the democracy of Athens' which found in the degenerated conditions and he came to propose construction of an ideal society in which justice symbolizes the virtuous, since Plato believed justice is there to be the prescription for the evils.

He used the Greek word "Dikaisyne" for justice which refers the work Ð''morality' or Ð''righteousness'. The English word justice and the Greek word Ð''Dikaisyne' capture imperfectness when explaining the same concept because the Greek one implies both law-abiding behaviours and institutions, and virtues of people in social context. However, neither justice nor fairness embrace the essence of Dikaisyne, but I use justice as a translation.

It is essential to point out that Plato approaches the justice at two levels: justice in the soul and justice in the city. Firstly, it is to be noted that many theories of justice were prevalent before Plato's analysis. Thus, before discussing his own concept of justice, it is necessary to analyze those traditional theories of justice were objected by him. Cephalus who was a representative of traditional morality of the ancient Greece established the traditional theory of justice . According to him 'justice consists of speaking in the right way and paying one's payment. Thus Cephalus identifies justice with right conduct. Beside, Polemarchus also maintains the same view of justice but with a little alteration. The simple implication of this conception of justice may be that Ð''justice is doing good to friends and harm to enemies'. The views propounded by Cephalus and Polemarchus

were criticized by Plato in the voice of Socrates. The view point of Cephalus is criticised on the ground that there may be exceptions in which this formula may involve the violation of the spirit of right. On the other hand, the oppositions of Plato force Polemarchus to find what benefits friends and harms enemies in number of specific contexts. There is a unclarity of words Ð''friends' and Ð''enemies.(Pappas,1995:36). But if the friends only in seeming, and an enemy in reality, then what will happen? Socrates concerns with the role of justice regardless of the differences between individuals like enemy or friends etc.

If the direction of discussion is changed, the new framework, that we are faced with, is what good is justice. Thrasymachus who acts upon the rhetoric just like sophists propounded the radical theory of justice. He defines justice as "the interest of the stronger". In the other words, Ð''might makes right'. For Thrasymachus justice means personal interest of the ruling group in any state, we can further define it as "another's good". Any governing group passes laws that benefits itself. Those who violate such laws are punished because violation of such laws is equal to the violation of justice. (Pappas,1995:40). Socrates firmly disagrees these points of Thrasymachus by focusing on the nature of justice. He firstly attacks the idea of the advantage of the stronger and exploits his comments about an ideal ruler Ð'-philosopher king- to make his fallacy as the Machiavellian cynicism.(Pappas,1995:41). Socrates determines the the ruler character as the fact that the unjust attempts to find better of all others, the just only get better of unjust. In this conjucture, Socrates would like to show how justice can be profitable:

justice requires cooperation, injustice separation. Therefore, the domination of justice over injustice will not result in the profitability of particular social pattern.

Glaucon and Adeimantus initiates the Book 2 with the concentrating the Thrasmachus point of view. They suggest a form of what was later to be known as a social contract theory, arguing we are only moral because Ð''it pays us or we have to be.' They want a defensive society, but have enough intellectual integrity. They argue that justice belongs to the lowest class of good because:

1. Ð''The rules of justice arise in social situations, out of agreements made by people pursuing their own interests.'

2. Ð''No one, who could get away with cheating, would abide by the rules of justice . That is people value justice only for its consequences.'

3. Ð''The life of the unjust is better than the life of just.'(Pappas,1995:52).

Plato contends that all theories proposed by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, have one common element. All of them consider justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention. Nonetheless, none of them elaborate it within the soul or within the place of its habitation-city. The ethical system of Republic is not supposed to analyze which behavior is right. Instead, Plato examines the justice at two levels: soul and city.

With the beginning of the emergence of justice in the city, Plato is in the pursuit of producing a political philosophy not only rigorous in the theory but also desirable in

practice. He specifies the cities classes by turning the attention to Ð''who will rule' and Ð''who will be ruled'. With the just polis, he considers the infrastructures and virtues vital in order to bring polis into balance, and then says that everyone, who does his own work properly in order for an ideal harmonious polis to be sustained, acts justly. The individual's harmonious condition is in unity with harmony in the polis. Just action is equally which brings about and keeps social harmony. To let all society to internalize the order that Plato creates, he makes use of a myth: Ð''Myths of Metal'. According to this, some have gold mixed into their souls, others silver, the rest bronze and iron. Hence, Ð''their place in the city reflects their nature crafted by god rather than historical or man-made separation.'(Pappas,1995:71). He wants to base class distinction on ability rather than wealth or birth. He differentiates the society into subgroups: guardians, auxiliaries, and the rest of society; respectively the men of reason, of the honor, and of the appetite. Corresponding to these three elements in human nature there are three classes in the social organism-Philosopher class or the ruling class; auxiliaries, a class of warriors and defenders of the country; and the appetite instinct of the