Justice in the Republic. The Republic of Plato examines how Plato believes that the perfect society is led only under perfect conditions .Furthermore; it is based on drawing a correlation between the life of the individual, civic life and the cosmos. So

Furthermore, in order to have the perfect city (polis) where justice exists, there are three aspects to the perfect soul that need to be present. The tripartite division of the soul must contain these parts; the calculating, the thymos, and the desiring. The calculating part, is where you find truth and knowledge, it is where rationalization in the soul occurs. The thymos, is the spiritedness, this is where an individual presents anger, righteousness, victory and glory. Lastly the desiring part is an individual’s appetites; it includes an individual’s want for necessary things like food or water.  In the just soul, the desire of the rational thinking (calculating) dictates over all. All appetites and honour are related to the rational ruling part of the soul. The Just soul wants truth always. This allows for the calculating part to dominate and become ruler of the just city. Therefore, Justice is needed to have order and principle in the soul for the just city to exist.
        In book I in The Republic of Plato, Socrates asks two specific questions and seeks to answer them. What is justice? Why should we be just individuals? Plato believes that a ruler works to his advantage and to his people. He says that you can identify a number of characteristics of passion, virtue and courage in rulers. Socrates engages in a conversation with Cephalus about old age and wealth. When Cephalus describes ones fears of death and the end disappear if you have done good in life, he concludes that “for this I count the possession of money most wroth-while, not for any man, but for the decent and orderly one”. What he is suggesting here, is that when one gets to old age and reminisces over his life, one remembers the good and bad, and attempts to repair his faults because of fear. Therefore, wealth allows a person to pay the debts that he owes in hopes of forgiveness in this world. Because according to Cephalus his definition of justice is defined as honesty and lawfulness towards others. It is speaking the truth and giving back what one takes. Socrates then gives an example of if you had borrowed a weapon from a friend, and promised you would give it back. Would you give it back to this person if you knew they were going to use it either to harm their self or others? Therefore Socrates comes to the conclusion that "Justice" should not be defined in performing ones duties, obligations and being honest. Polemarchus then answers the definition of justice; he says justice is when you give back what is owed by doing good to friends and harm to enemies . Polemarchus describes justice as being an art for dispensing what is fitting. Therefore, do well to friends and bad to enemies. Socrates then answers Polemarchus by saying your ally is not always the finest individuals and your enemies are not always the worst. Therefore, it is unfair to conclude that you help your friends and harm your foes. At the End of book one, Socrates states that everything has both a characteristic function, importance and a virtue. This argument suggests that the just person has virtue (Excellence), and this allows their soul to function properly. This is ordered by the cosmos. Consequently this external order allows us to know what is truly just.
        In Book II, The discussion about justice is believed to be over, However Glaucon comes up with a question for Socrates; what kind of good would you place "Justice" with?  Would it be by nature; meaning not for the sake of something or by convention: like learning, one does not necessarily like going to school, but an individual still goes in order to receive a degree and the ending is good. Or is it instrumental: meaning for the sake of something else, e.g.) the act of sex just to have a child. The things an individual chooses to have for their own interest, for their sake and the interest of the result, or for the interest of their outcome only. Socrates then answers and says that having justice is a wonderful thing and it is when one chooses to benefit their self and being in the best interest of having justice that we want the outcome to be advantageous as well. Socrates main contention is that justice is really a harmonious, healthy condition of the soul. A person, who is honest, is a person who is virtuous and will live the good life. Because the within the good life, the chief virtues are courage wisdom, temperance, morality, and moderation. Furthermore, a good person is a person with a conjunction of attributes and actions that society perceives as being right. A good person lives there like and makes decisions using common knowledge about what is sensible and right without infringing on the rights of others.

Glaucon suggests that people generally think justice is only something you practice to avoid various evils, like being wronged by other people. He challenges Socrates to show justice is valuable in itself. He states that if you could be invisible to humans, there would not be a reason for you to be just in pursuit of the good. He uses the story about the Ring of Gyges, it was a ring that you would wear, once worn you would be invisible and you could perform any injustice for your own benefit and not be seen by any individual. This invisibility would give an individual freedom to do what they please and be punished for it. He believes that individuals classify justice in the category that individuals are just in order to benefit themselves. Nature is what dictates the pursuit of an individual’s own good. He says that people perceive justice as corruption and that we let ourselves suffer in order to escape a larger corruption. We all can be affected from one another’s negligence. Therefore justice is something individuals participate in out of feebleness and uncertainty. Glaucon shapes this argument and shows us that he approves that it is better to be unjust than just. Plato then makes a comparison between the just and unjust person. Both individuals would be given a ring to be invisible and perform unjust acts. Glaucon suggests that “no one, as it would seem, would be so adamant as to stick by justice and bring himself to keep away from what belongs to others and not lay hold of it.” Therefore, no one is willing to be unjust, unless being compelled too. Glaucon sees that the consideration of justice would be placed in being honourable, therefore it is usually chosen because we feel more dignified. Furthermore, the only way to feel honourable is through recognition from individuals around us. Moreover, believing justice is a pleasant entity is because of the positive feedback we receive.

        Towards the end of book II, Adiemantus goes against what Glaucon had been arguing. Adiemantus believes that no one praises justice for its own health and knowledge. Being just has its rewards in life and after life.  He states that Justice is desirable for joy and happiness. Justice is good because of what develops from it. He ultimately says “utterly there is not a proper answer to choose justice over injustice”. Moreover, Plato proves that justice does not depend upon convention or change. It is the human nature that seeks for understanding of the soul.  Justice and happiness coincide together because it is a way for human soul to fulfill its nature. Socrates believes that happiness (Eudemonia) is necessary within a society. He suggests that, “However, in founding the city we are not looking to the exceptional happiness, of any one group among us but, as far as possible, that of the city as a whole.” This is suggesting that justice within a society is more important than the happiness of any one citizen. Therefore, the harmony between individuals and civic life is significant to acheieve the highest good being justice.

        Socrates suggests “Then bad soul necessarily rules and manages badly while the good one does all these things well” Socrates is stating that the good soul or just person has virtue while the unjust/bad soul does not. “Then the just soul and the just man will have a good life and the unjust man a bad one.”  Furthermore, Socrates concludes that “the man who lives well is blessed and happy, and the man who does not is the opposite.” What he means is that living is the function of the soul, and justice is a characteristic for virtue, therefore, allowing the just man to live well and be happy. What Plato is suggesting for happiness is that “living well” and “happiness” must coincide in order to have justice.

        The divisions of the soul and city are closely interconnected. The just and happy society does not exist without them. Furthermore, Plato’s three class society and divisions of the soul is explained by the social qualities and cardinal virtues. The Rulers have the calculating part of the soul. The rulers are wise; they have the knowledge and rationality to run the just city. The Auxiliaries have the thymos, which is the spiritedness and thirst for righteousness and glory over the enemies. They are known as the courageous that enforce and protect. Lastly, the Workers/ craftsmen obey the classes above them, they have the desiring part of the soul, and they desire necessary things for living. The producers will have the virtue of moderation to produce all the goods and services for the city. Auxiliaries would be educated in order to observe the laws in the finest possible way. They will have the virtue of courage like watchdogs to protect their own people and fight enemies. The ruler will have the virtue of wisdom. The wisdom enjoyed by the rulers would be used to ensure that the city is ruled by good judgement and the wise. To make the city just those three virtues have to work in harmony. The idea of harmony is crucial to Plato’s definition of justice, as justice to him means each part of society works together in the best way possible. All these parts perform their proper function under the command of reason. Plato believed that these three classes have to work together for the "Good Life".

         Glaucon suggests a city called the feverish city in which justice can be utilized. This city introduces war as a necessary thing to protect luxuries for life to exist. The feverish city contains injustice, honour and unnecessary desires. Justice and philosophy is introduces in this city. It contains the high things of life, and it is built on war. However, the feverish city is in need to find a way to educate the warrior class. Glaucon believes that the warrior class needs to befriend the citizens, and become a part of civic life. He believes that the citizens will educate the warriors about justice. Furthermore, the Guardians are the warriors in the city and they need to be educated. Glaucon suggests that this education is a form of physical education. This physical education is for their bodies, and the education of music and poetry  is for their souls. Socrates believes that poetry is irrational and there is no good or bad within it. He believes that these stories are myths told just for amusement. Furthermore, he believes that the stories need to be purged, because it does not teach the citizens to be just or virtuous.

        Moreover, Socrates suggests three ways of bringing up a just and perfect city; these are called the "Three waves".  Socrates explains that the first is equality of the sexes meaning males and females should be treated the same; Plato believed that males and females should be given the same education and both should have the same opportunities within the society. Gender equality was led to a conclusion by a different standard. Each person should perform the job in which they are best suited for. E.g.) Men are designed to fight and protect, while women are designed to take care of the home, and raise children.  Next is the communal property in which women and children are held in common, nothing is owned by anyone, the city is your family, and everyone is equal and unified. Third is the philosopher king; Plato argues that reason is the best of all virtues through which to rule the soul, therefore he states that the city needs a king who rules the city by the virtue of wisdom. According to Plato, only the philosopher king, who is described as a lover of wisdom, can protect the city from degeneration. Only the philosopher king can rule the city with justice. The waves are symbolic to make the city perfect; however this suggestion of the “three waves” fails because the aristocracy they build has a mistake in breeding, allowing incest to occur, and creating genetic defects.

Plato used the concept of four stages of cognition, “The Line Allegory” to demonstrate the difference between knowledge and opinion, reality and appearance, metaphysics and epistemology.  The four levels are described in succession as corresponding to increasing levels of reality from common illusion, to belief, to reasoning, and then to philosophical understanding. The two lower levels Plato calls the visible realm, and the two higher levels are the intelligible realm. The people in the cave live in the visual realm, as Plato’s divided line illustrates. The lowest level of the line is eikasia; people live solely by their imagination, just like the prisoners of the cave.  The prisoners believe in what they see and what is available for them to know. The second level is pistis; people at that level live with opinions. In the second level of the line, people believe in the actual things they can touch and see; now their experiences are more direct. They have opinions about things but their opinions are not proven, opinions can be right or wrong. When the prisoner is freed from his chains and looks around, this is an example of pistis. Now he knows those shadows are not true things; there is fire and the puppets making them. The third level is dianoia: the lower grade of the intelligible realm. Here, people try to relate to the Forms of the Good by thinking and reasoning; people not only see the actual things but they start to analyse a theory of reality. Because of their improved level of thinking and understanding they will come up with good ideas as well as unproved assumptions. In this level, people have mathematical and scientific knowledge. They are capable of reasoning. And the last, the highest level, is noesis: the understanding of forms and dialects. At the highest stage of knowledge one will recognize the Form of the Good. The highest level of the awareness is the knowledge of universal propositions. In the highest grade of the intelligible realm, the person gains philosophical reasoning. Good is responsible for the existence of forms. Socrates also suggests that even the person with the highest level of knowledge can’t know every individual thing, but because of his knowledge and understanding, he realizes the appropriate order or proportion of the Forms. According to Plato, the master of the knowledge of forms, the Philosopher-King, is the only person who can rule the city and defend it from degeneration. As the divided line demonstrates, people will go up step-by-step from one level to another in order to eventually become a philosopher.

         In book VI, there is a political problem that occurs, Adiemantus, makes an accusation against philosophy.  He says “They believe that because of inexperience at questioning and answering, they are at each question misled ….they become useless to the cities.” This accusation by Adiemantus suggests that philosophers are misleading individuals by making the weak arguments presented seem stronger. He suggests that philosophers are useless and vicious. According to Adiemantus, this is the sense of which education undermines what is right and wrong, making rules contradictory and not rational. Socrates then answers Adiemantus by the use of the pilot metaphor. This metaphor is the answer to Adiemantus`s claim of uselessness. Supposing that there is a ship owner, who surpasses everyone in height and strength, however he cannot see or hear. The sailors on the ship are known as the politicians, they want the power from the ship-owner, and the skilled sailor is clever at getting the rule of the ship through the use of persuasion. Then there is the true pilot also known as the star gazer on the ship, and this is the philosopher, being the star gazer he looks beyond want for power but he knows navigation. The star gazer looks at the stars, which are fixed, constant, and unchanging. The idea of this example is that most individuals try to get ahead with being clever, and having unjust tricks. However the few philosophers who turn their sights towards the forms (stars), they truly know of the things.  The philosopher is unafraid of to use words, and he is the most virtuous of men; he allows for the association with forms and strives towards the truth. Socrates suggests that the only way to be happy is to measure happiness against anything that does not change. Therefore, the philosopher is not deemed vicious or useless, because the philosopher looks beyond, and sees the forms; he is just, while the sailors are caught up in unjust acts to try to rule. The pilot metaphor helps us understand the sailors are unhappy because they are unjust and the philosopher’s happiness exists because he is just.

         In The Republic of Plato, happiness as suggested by Plato is pure and optimal in order to achieve peace, contentment results from having a perfectly just soul. Furthermore, inner conflict has to be absent from within in order for an individual to prosper and not endure any suffering. This happiness can be acquired by obtaining the virtue of justice, where reason is the director for the soul, making it valuable and good in itself.  According to Plato, true happiness arises from within as a result of cultivating the correct state of mind, and cannot be diminished for as long as the balance within oneself is maintained, even if someone tried to impose it on them.

        The Republic of Plato is a contribution to ethics: a discussion of what justice is, and why is justice necessary to be happy. Furthermore, justice is necessary for harmony between individuals and civic life, Socrates arrives at a conclusion of justice through the use of many extended metaphors. Overall Socrates demonstrates that the just individual is truly perceived as being happier than the unjust individual. The unjust person is not the advantage of the stronger, but the advantage of the smarter. The stronger does things to benefit one self, while the smarter, does things for the benefit of society as a whole.

In conclusion Socrates main argument is that justice is a harmonious healthy condition of the soul while the unjust life is led by anger, greediness, and tragedy within the soul.

Works Cited

• Allan Bloom, The Republic of Plato, 2nd Ed. 1991.

• Porter, Jene M. Classics In Political Philosophy. Prentice Hall, 2001.

---