The simile of the cave also expressed the way that ordinary people view things. Plato asked us to think of people who have been in the same position for their whole lives, tied and bound so that they can only see the back wall of the cave. The people have been there since birth and therefore do not question that what they can see may not be real. Behind them is a wall where people are carrying things, the flickering fire casts shadows onto the wall in front of them, and this is their reality. Plato was making a judgement that the mind had the ability to discern the ideal forms. The form of the Good is compared to the sun, In the visible world, the sun is a form of growth and light and gives us the faculty to see, in this way it gives objects their sense and allows them to be perceived. However, in the intelligible world, the sun gives the faculty to know and to have knowledge. It is a source of reality and truth that gives the faculty of thought to the mind. It would be assumed therefore, that Plato would agree that everyone has the potential to learn. But Plato believes that education is innate to the person and that they have only so much potential to learn things themselves, he believed that philosophers would be the only people who could ever truly ‘know’ things through the forms.
Aristotle would not agree that there is such thing as the Good and would reject the argument for the forms; he would answer that things are good in different ways and even if there was a form of the Good then its usefulness would be questionable. One main difference between Plato and Aristotle is obvious at this point. Due to Plato believing that only philosophers can have access to the Forms, only philosophers therefore can have ethical understanding. Whereas Aristotle’s theory that virtues can be learned by habit, which can be argued to be the foundations of ethical understanding, ethics therefore can be acquired by anyone.
Aristotle used an example of the soul to show both what virtues are. The soul is composed of feelings, dispositions and habits. Aristotle negates that we are good or bad simply because of how we feel, nor because we possess the dispositions which enable us to have feelings. He asserts that as virtues are not feelings or dispositions, virtues are habits. Hughes criticised this argument as he stated that there are other conditions in the soul which have not been examined, such as thoughts, memories, images and learned skills. Another criticism of this is that virtues and vices are taken for granted at being linked to our feelings or emotions. Unlike Plato Aristotle is prepared to assert that both plants and animals have souls and that organisms are internally organised or have, ‘an inbuilt natural aim’. Hughes argues that since Aristotle is relates the aim we have in life to ethics, ethics must be based on the capabilities of the human soul. In this sense, our nature and matter determines both our aim and what fulfilment is for us. Aristotle could be seen to be saying that even though the basic principles of how to live well should be adhered to, Eudemonia is still subjective to the individual.
Plato would argue that ethics has a subject matter and therefore ethical judgements have truth conditions and do not simply express emotions or attitudes. For instance, to judge that someone is ‘just’ is to ascribe a property to him, the property of a properly ruled psyche. Therefore ethics is central to the agent; the person must have the property of something to perform the properties relevant action. This is different to most contemporary theories which are act centred such as deontological theories where ‘certain features of the act itself determine whether it is right or wrong’. (Palmer.) Aristotle however would argue that virtues, and therefore morals are gained by habit. The moral virtues involve a ‘particular pattern of emotional response to situations’ (Hughes), showing how using virtues becomes a conditioned response to things, virtues become inbuilt and habitual. Plato would argue that virtues are not gained through habit but are to some extent inbuilt in the person from birth. Plato puts a huge amount of weight on the knowledge and ability to acquire this on the philosopher alone and therefore would argue that only philosophers can be truly virtuous as they are the only people who understand how/when people should act.
Aristotle would argue that ethics is subjective in its nature and therefore you can formulate some general principles but not expect them to hold. He states, ‘to ask how a man should behave towards his wife or in general how one should conduct any relationship with someone else seems to be the same as asking how one should live one’s life justly’. He highlights how there is a difference in an assessment of the situation depending on whether you are dealing with a friend, stranger, companion or contemporary. This is a clear problem that is linked with the notion of justice. He would suggest that when applying law to particular cases, the outcome can sometimes be unjust. Aristotle would suggest supplementing ‘epieikeia’ to the general ethical principles, a sense of what is ‘fair and reasonable in an individual situation’ (Hughes). ‘Epieikeia’ can be regarded as practical wisdom in a legal context. Similarly to practical wisdom, it is a matter of perception rather than principle.
Justice can be seen as the product of ethical understanding as acting just is relevant both in living a virtuous and ethical life, but also developing a system for which the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people can be upheld; found in Plato’s idea of the ideal state. Plato considers the unjust before assessing the just, and draws a parallel between the just person and the just state. He shows the state as a framework for ethical development, that acquiring ethics is possibly through the state itself. Plato however sites that the perfectly just society is one that, ‘I doubt will ever exist on earth’. In this way, ethics through justice becomes an abstract theoretical issue, something unattainable, yet something that should still be strived for.
Plato and Aristotle’s study of ethics can be described as normative ethics; considerations are made to what is good and bad and how we decide what actions are right and wrong. However, Plato and Aristotle differ in which category of normative ethics they appear to agree with. Plato is a teleologist, described by C.D.Broad as, ‘the rightness or wrongness of an action is always determined by its tendency to produce certain consequences which are intrinsically good or bad.’ This is assumed from the fact that it is the Good and not justice which faces the greatest study. Justice is only what it is because of its relation to the Good; justice is simply a product of a utilitarian setting, where it enforces the greatest good and therefore the greatest happiness, rather than being a virtue in its own right. However, this view of Plato is criticised by Annas, who argued that Plato did not really represent utilitarian ideas at all, ’the consequence of justice is argued to be the agent’s happiness’ showing Plato as a believer in the greatest happiness for the individual. In this way, if we believe that justice is a product of ethical understanding, then ethics is associated with the beliefs of Aristotle. Aristotle, unlike Plato, described a branch of ethics known as ‘Virtue ethics’ where it is concerned with developing the four ancient virtues, temperance, justice, courage, and (practical) wisdom. These virtues would then contribute to the individual having the greatest happiness and becoming Eudemonic, living well. In this sense it is clear that justice is taken in very different ways by the philosophers.
Aristotle identified two different senses of ‘just’. The first is ‘just’ in a general sense and is described as ‘morally admirable’. Aristotle then suggests that the laws (at least in an ideal state) will reinforce the publicly accepted morality, so unjust is therefore the equivalent to unlawful. This is similar to the contemporary ‘just government argument’ put forward by Bentham, which argues that our obligation to pursue justice is moral and unconditional. Living in a society of justice and obeying it’s rules by consent will therefore make the individual just and in this way, the moral virtue of justice is upheld by those who follow the laws. However Pitkin argued against this by asking ‘is the just government self evidently just?’ This is because justice can be interpreted in many different ways and changes through cultural and economic boom or fall in a society. It is debateable whether a government can be just in itself, or whether it simply adheres to the way we perceive justice at any given time. Plato would argue however, that the individuals which are most fit to rule, the philosophers, would have access to the forms and therefore self evidently, would be just. T. H. Green similarly to Plato, suggested that a common good, the greatest good that could be achieved overall was not only what should be strived for, but that our common humanity and rational nature lead us to recognise a common good, which creates moral and political obligation towards ourselves and towards other people. The state promotes the common good and therefore deserves obedience. This again leads back in to the argument put forward by Aristotle, that being unjust is the equivalent of being unlawful. In this way it is clear that both Aristotle and Plato agree on a framework for which justice should be gained in. It could be argued that Aristotle believes that the virtue of justice is gained from the law as it can be gathered that a person without justice, does not live within the law. This is very similar to Plato, who would give a lot of weight to the purpose of the law. Not because he believed that it was for the minority who needed to be protected from themselves and who other people needed to be protected from as in liberal ideology, but because he believed that it was only philosophers who could choose and knew what was good for people and therefore should claim arguable ownership over their free will for the common good. Aristotle however, would believe everyone could gain the virtue justice, unlike Plato who believed that justice should simply be extended on people for their own good. It is interesting, the difference in views of how ethical conduct is considered in the making of the perfect society.
The second sense of ‘just’ shows justice as a specific virtue, alongside courage and temperance. Justice is shown both in the ‘just distribution of benefits and the righting of previous wrongs or injuries’ (Hughes). ‘Unjust’, therefore, is contrasted with just as trying to obtain more than one’s fair share and with unfairness. This contrasts absolutely with Plato’s ideas about societies. Aristotle appears to be arguing for democracy, a society that promotes equality and treating everyone the same. Whereas, Plato would site democracy as the penultimate worst type of society, only surpassed by tyranny. Aristotle never outright endorses democracy, but Plato would hold a somewhat Conservative ideological standpoint and not agree that people are equal. In the ‘Republic’ Plato believed that people only had a certain capacity to learn and only certain talents that they could use. For instance, the ‘guardians’ were the only people who he believed should rule, and in this way were not equal to anyone else, as they had more power than their fair share. There is an obvious criticism to this, Lord Acton stated that, ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ As much as Plato can elevate the philosopher in terms of being the only person to govern the perfect state, there is no contemporary institution of checks and balances and therefore it would be easy for his society to fall into tyranny, due to the imperfect nature of human beings. However, this point is debateable and depends on whether the philosopher can be suggested to be able to behave immorally when he has access to the absolute truth and morality found in the forms.
Plato would describe a person as just if ‘each part is acting virtuously and as it should’ (Annas). Plato claimed that the soul was made up of three parts, reason, spirit and desire. Reason is ruling, spirit is ensuring that reason had adequate motivational backing and desire is acquiescing in control by the other two, rather than pressing its own particular claims. Plato would label justice as ‘psychic harmony’ and describe it as the appropriate flourishing of all aspects of the individual. Plato makes a comparison with health and suggests that a person is completely healthy when no aspect of him is being denied its specific sustenance, the just are not denied any aspect of proper expression. Annas criticised this because justice was being defined as an internal state of the person, rather than in terms of their behaviour to others. Annas questioned, ‘what is it for reason to rule in the soul?’ This goes back to the fact that Plato believed that ethics is agent centred. As he is a teleologist, he saw justice as a foundation for a good life in a person and agreed that justice was important because it promoted the ideals that he would want in his perfect state, which doesn’t necessarily mean that every action is inherently good or bad in itself. ‘The rightness or wrongness of an action is always determined by it’s tendency to produce certain consequences which are intrinsically good or bad’. This leaves Plato open to a lot of criticism as it does not discount actions such as murder which are obviously bad, but however could be justified for the common good if a person was having so much negative impact on others around them for whatever reason. The idea of all actions being measured on their consequence is a good one, but there is almost a difference between morality and ethics here. Ethics in practise could justify killing someone, where basic morality and Aristotle naming actions that are bad in themselves could never allow that.
To begin to conclude, it is obvious that the acquisition of ethics can be found in the reasoning of both Plato and Aristotle in the way that they treat the issue of justice. Plato would see justice as simply a product of the Good which is the main area of his study, where it therefore follows that ethics itself is related almost directly to the Good. Plato suggests that the form of the Good is what allows us to know things; it gives us the faculty to understand the intelligible world. Therefore without access to the Good, there could be no acquisition of ethics, as ethics is central to the agent and the agent having a property in them that can only be achieved through access to the forms. Someone can only be just and do just things if they have the relevant property of a just psyche ascribed to them, and it is natural to assume that to be able to acquire a just psyche the person must have knowledge of the Good, and in this way, Plato would argue that the acquisition of ethics can only come from the philosopher. This is backed up by Plato’s argument that philosophers should become guardians in the state, as they know what is the best for the individual and the group and so it is obvious that they have acquired ethics in Plato’s mind.
Aristotle gives a more subjective view of ethics and unlike Plato’s view of the agent having either the quality to be ‘just’ through ethical understanding or no ethical understanding at all, Aristotle argued that you can form some general principles but not expect them to hold. This is similar to his explanation of actions using the ‘mean’ as all you can do is know the inherently bad and good but you must use your own knowledge in situations. There is obviously times when things are inherently just or unjust but sometimes things must be judged on their situations, such as when a just legal system appears to provide an unjust outcome. Aristotle appears to argue for a more democratic society and also places a lot of weight on the development for the individual, such as the fact that anyone can become virtuous. Unlike Plato’s quest for utility, Aristotle cites Eudemonia ‘living well’ as the greatest happiness for the individual, which appears to abolish the rigid class system that Plato argued for. In this way, the acquisition of justice and assumed acquisition of ethics, through learning the virtues or otherwise is available to anyone.
Ethics, it appears, is handled differently by the two philosophers but they do agree that the consequences of actions to some extent determine their rightness or wrongness through normative ethics. The conclusive difference is that Plato’s focus was on the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people and therefore, ethics would represent a basis for making decisions based more on the group happiness rather than the individuals and so people who could understand this, would be the only ones who acquire ethics. Aristotle’s focus being on the greatest happiness for the individual is pursued practically, by the individual themselves, showing ethics as being innate to the individual. It conclusively makes more sense why Plato cited the philosophers as the only people who could know things, as it is assumed that human nature allows us to make ethical judgements about ourselves and see the consequences of our actions. However, it would require an exterior knowledge that does not simply come from our experiences as an individual to be able to decide what is best for the greatest amount of people. So to conclude I would argue that Plato and Aristotle only disagree on who would acquire ethical understanding simply because they cite the use of this ethical understanding differently and have different aims for the society’s understanding of ethics.