Two Senses of Justice in Plato s Republic

Writing Sample
Note to the reader: This essay was submitted as a term paper for the course Classic Greek
Philosophy at Mansfield University of Pennsylvania in Fall 2008. The paper consisted of
questions that were to be answered by me which is why it is not continuous piece of writing. I
added the assignment questions at the end of the paper.
Maria Reich
December 19, 2008
1
1.
Plato perceived the soul to be constituent of three parts: the rational part, the spirited
part, and the appetitive part. These three parts are organized in a hierarchy with reason (the
rational part) being superior to the other two, spirit (the spirited part) being inferior to reason
and superior to appetite (the appetitive part), and appetite conclusively being inferior to the
other two (Republic 439d & 441a-b).
Platos conception of the soul and its inherent hierarchy are very important to Platos
understanding of justice
1
. In the just
1
persons soul, the three parts are working in this
hierarchical order: Reason is governing the two inferior parts, spirit and appetite (Republic
441e). While spirit has to obey reason, it has some power over appetite (442b). Appetite, which
Plato holds to be the largest part of the soul, is governed by both reason and spirit.
What are the three parts operations? The rational part is the entity that uses rational
calculation and reasoning to assess a situation or action. Plato writes: Well call the part of the
soul with which it calculates the rational part (439d). Spirit is the part that is naturally inclined
to know what to fear and listens to reason and its beliefs. And the appetitive part is where lusts,
desires, and appetites exist with no view of the greater picture which is necessary for
moderation.
Only if the three parts work together and each of them does its own work, a person
can be just (Republic 443d-e). This can be drawn from Platos conception of justice in the city.
Plato explains that a city is just if all the classes in the city do their own work (435b). As the city
is used as a model of greater scale in place of the individual in the original quest for justice in a
2
person, it can be concluded that each part in a persons soul doing its own work is also justice
(435b-c). This would be considered justice
1
as it pertains to the inner justice in ones soul.
In Book IV of the Republic, Plato also discusses why complying with inner justice
1
is the
only rational way of living for an individual. Glaucon says in section 445b, Even if one had
every kind of food and drink [], and every sort of power to rule, life is thought to be not worth
living when the bodys nature is ruined. Socrates says that it is ridiculous (445b) not to follow
the inner hierarchy of the soul. The just man would only act (and live happily) when all the
three parts in his soul are doing their own work because then he [] becomes entirely one,
moderate and harmonious (443e). Plato compares the soul working in compliance with inner
justice
1
is similar to a persons health. He writes that [t]o produce health is to establish the
components of the body in a natural relation of control and being controlled (444d) is an
inherently desirable state for a person. Conclusively, a healthy soul that works in compliance
with inner justice
1
(in which there is a balance between control and being controlled between
the three parts) is as inherently desirable.
What is important to notice here is that Platos conception of happiness is similar to that
of Aristotle and many other philosophers in ancient Greece: Happiness is when one is virtuous.
Glaucon says, [] if someone can do whatever he wishes, except what will free him from vice
and injustice [], how can it be worth living [] (Republic 445b). Glaucon makes this remark in
response to Socrates question whether it is profitable for a person not to follow their inherent
desire for a healthy soul and not to act justly employing inner justice
1
. The answer obviously is
no. If a person does not follow the hierarchy of their soul and lets each of the three parts do its
own work, then it will be impossible for them to acquire justice and therefore virtue which is
3
the key to happiness. It follows that happiness cannot be achieved if one does not adopt and
support the internal constitution of their soul.
2.
According to Socrates, a person who is internally just
1
would not commit unjust
2
acts
because that would be working against the persons inner justice
1
.
Consider the example Plato presents in section 433e of the Republic:
Wont you order your rulers to act as judges in the citys courts?
Of course.
And wont their sole aim in delivering judgments be that no citizen should have
what belongs to another or be deprived of what is his own?
Theyll have no aim but that.
Because that is just?
Yes.
Socrates and Glaucon establish here that it is just that everyone should have what is
theirs and no one should possess what does not belong to them. Socrates seems to assume
that if this is true, the principle must be inherent not only in the citys justice, but also in a
persons inner justice
1
. Therefore, if all the parts in a just
1
persons soul do their own work, then
this includes that reason (with spirit as his ally) overrules appetite whenever appetite wants
something that does not belong to the person (Republic 443b). This is what Plato describes as
the pleonexia the way of outdoing others to accumulate more and more of what is not ones
own. (344e 18). In sections 443d and 443e, Plato writes that a just
1
person would only commit
such acts that let the parts of the soul do their own work. This means that only acts through
which the hierarchy within the soul is not corrupted will be exercised by the just
1
person. As,
according to Socrates, the definitions of the just
2
acts must be inherent to the soul, it must have
4
influence on the workings of the hierarchy of the three parts of the soul. Socrates reasoning
therefore is that an internally just
1
person would not commit socially unjust
2
acts because these
acts would not comply with the hierarchy of the three parts within the soul: And when [the
just person] does anything [] in all of these, he believes that the action is just and fine that
preserves this inner harmony and helps achieve it (443e).
3.
Socrates view is controversial. The question is whether there is a relationship or
connection between the justice
1
within the soul and the justice
2
of acts. Justice
2
can be seen as
social justice as it exists within the city when each part is doing its own work and everyone gets
what belongs to them(see the example used in 2., Republic 433e).
It seems logical that if one can use justice in a city as a model for justice in the soul,
there would be a connection between inner justice
1
and outer justice
2
. If the city as a whole
resembles the soul, then the citys parts must resemble parts of the soul. Therefore, outer
justice
2
must be similar to inner justice
1
as they represent the corresponding parts of the city
and the individual.
Lets see if this is to be proven true if we apply the idea to the story of the ancestor in
Gyges, which Plato presents in Republic II (359d 360b). The story goes as follows: The
ancestor of Gyges finds a ring in a tomb, which is revealed to him through an earthquake. He
takes the ring from the tomb and discovers that the ring gives him the power to make himself
invisible whenever he turns it a certain way. Gyges ancestor takes the opportunity and uses the
5
ring to seduce the kings wife, kills the king with the help of the kings wife and takes over the
kingdom.
If Socrates idea that inner justice
1
and outer (or social) justice
2
are somehow connected
and are similar to each other is true, it should be easy to explain why Gyges ancestor did what
he did and depending on the result whether his acts were just
2
or unjust
2
.
Firstly, one should evaluate Gyges ancestors actions relating to justice
1
. If the
ancestors soul had operated properly and reason had governed both spirit and appetite while
spirit governed appetite as reasons ally, then Gyges would not have given in in taking the ring
from the tomb. The desire to take the ring is an appetite for wealth. Gyges ancestor obviously
did not let reason govern the two lower parts of his soul because if he had, his reason would
have overruled taking the ring. It was wrong to take the ring because it is not right to take what
does not belong to oneself and the ring obviously did not belong to Gyges ancestor. One could
argue that Gyges ancestor was supposed to get the ring for the simple reason that the tomb
would not have been revealed through the storm and the earthquake if the gods had not
wanted the ancestor of Gyges to have the ring. But this seems implausible the gods would not
arrange for something immoral to happen and even if they had, the conventions on morality
would have dictated for Gyges ancestor not to take the ring.
But even if Gyges ancestor was supposed to have the ring, the gods surely would have
not wanted him to seduce the kings wife and kill the king with her help to take over the
kingdom. These acts are based on appetites of the soul for sex and power and therefore the
reason in Gyges ancestors soul should have battled the decision to commit these acts. As Plato
writes, a good person would not commit any acts that leave his soul in turmoil (Republic, 443d).
6
It seems as if Socrates has a point that one who is internally just
1
would not have committed
the acts Gyges ancestor had committed.
Secondly, one needs to evaluate if the actions of Gyges ancestors are considered
socially unjust
2
as well. These actions would be considered socially unjust
2
if they conflicted
with rights of others, such as the right to property, right to life, etc.
When looking at the three main acts within the story of the ancestor of Gyges taking
the ring, seducing the kings wife, killing the king it seems pretty clear that each of these
violate other peoples rights in some way.
For the first act this is not so clear. Let me explain. Taking the ring from the tomb did not
directly violate another persons rights, but it violated the right of the dead to be honored. In
ancient Greece, these kinds of rights were very important. In Sophocles Antigone, the main
character kills herself after being punished for giving her brother a funeral which was
prohibited by the leader of the city, Creon (Antigone, 1344-1348). The second act seducing
the kings wife clearly is a case of adultery which is considered a socially unjust
2
action. One
could argue that it violates the kings exclusive right of his wife, but I feel that this is a sexist
point of view and therefore will not discuss it more closely. The third action also seems socially
unjust
2
. Taking another persons life is a violation of the right to life of every person and one of
the clearest examples of a socially unjust
2
act as it is regarded as morally and legally wrong in
(almost) all countries today and in history.
After it is established now that Gyges ancestor acted unjustly both when referring to
internal justice
1
and outer (social) justice
2
, one should see what the connection between the
two viewpoints is. It seems that when considering inner justice
1
, all three main acts committed
7
by Gyges ancestor are fueled by appetites the appetites for wealth, sex, and power in
particular. If there is a connection between acts that are stimulated by appetites and socially
unjust
2
acts, then Socrates argument that an internally just
2
person would not commit any
socially unjust
2
acts would be true.
The question conclusively is whether any socially unjust
2
acts are caused by appetites as
they exist in the appetitive part of the persons soul. To find the answer to this question in
Platos Republic is not easy. Plato writes in Republic IV (444d), to produce injustice is to
establish a relation of ruling and being ruled contrary to nature. And also, injustice in the city
would be [m]eddling and exchange between the three classes [rulers, soldiers, and crafts
people] (Republic, 434c) because it is the greatest that can happen to the city (434c) and
the worst thing that someone could do to his city is injustice (434c). It seems that ones wish
for exchange and meddling is caused by appetites a craftspersons appetite for more power
which results in the person striving to be a ruler of the city, or one of the unworthy soldiers
[who] tries to enter [the class] of judges and guardians (434b) seem to be caused by the
craftspersons appetite to have more money and say in the citys affairs and the soldiers
appetite for more power. One can conclude then that social injustice
2
is caused by appetites for
things that are related to the social order like power, wealth, etc.
Here is the connection that needed to be established between inner justice
1
and outer
(social) justice
2
: They are both caused by emerging appetites. If a person is not internally just
1
that means that the spirited and appetitive parts of their soul do not follow the hierarchy within
the soul anymore. Clearly, reason as the highest of the three parts would not try to change the
hierarchical structure of the soul. If a person is socially unjust
2
, then the appetites in their soul
8
have emerged because of internal injustice
1
of the person and make it possible for them to
strive for positions within the social system to which they not belong, which causes the person
to commit acts that are violating other peoples rights. As this connection is established, it
follows that Socrates argument that an internally just
1
person would not commit socially
unjust
2
acts is correct.
4.
Aristotles moral philosophy has several main parts which I will introduce first before
assessing Gyges ancestors behavior through Aristotelian philosophy.
Aristotles most important idea is that what is good is what is virtuous or excellent
(Nicomachean Ethics 1103a9). Aristotle examines what it means to be virtuous or excellent and
establishes that there are some things which are naturally vices, i.e. by definition (1107a09-
1107a13). Injustice is one of them.
The main instrument Aristotle establishes to assess the morality or immorality of an
action, is the five-pronged test for virtuous action (Nicomachean Ethics 1106b19-23): If an
action is committed at the right time, towards the right objects, with relation to the right
people, with the right motive and in the right way, then the action is virtuous. But this test only
is a framework for the assessment of the virtue of an action. There are a number of other
principles that also play a role in the evaluation.
One concept that is important to the evaluation of an action in Aristotelian philosophy is
the doctrine of the mean (Urmson, p. 28). Aristotle says that an action is virtuous if exercised
in a mean between excess and deficiency (Nicomachean Ethics 1106b23-24).
9
Another concept that is important here is phronesis or practical wisdom. Practical
wisdom entails that a person can use ideas and rules they have learned and apply them to a
specific situation in the right way (Robinson, pp. 64-65). This includes learning. Aristotle
understands education or learning as a process of which the outcome can only be as good as
the input. That means that one has to have a virtuous teacher in order to be able to learn being
virtuous (Urmson, p. 26).
These two concepts combined as the foundation for the framework of the schematic
test, can be used to evaluate situations and actions on whether they are virtuous or vicious. In
the case of the ancestor of Gyges, the framework of the five-pronged test would be applied as
follows.
The first question is if Gyges ancestor acted at the right time. As we do not have any
specific information about the circumstances of the situation, we must assume that he did act
at the right time. One could say, for example, that if the kingdom had been in a bad economic
or political state, it would have been a good time to overturn the king and have a new king to
govern the kingdoms affairs.
The second question in Aristotles test is whether the ancestor of Gyges acted with
reference to the right objects. Assuming the situation of the kingdom as described above and
taking into consideration the magical ring as the object of reference, it seems that Gyges
ancestor acted rightfully because the ring was the only object that would have made his acting
possible.
The third part of the framework asks whether Gyges ancestors action was aimed
toward the right people. If the situation is as described above, one has to say that he acted
10
justly because the king was the sovereign in the state or kingdom, so naturally he would be the
person to aim at if change is wanted. If the situation does not equal the scenario described
above, Gyges ancestor would have caused an uproar and overturn of power that would not
benefit anyone and most likely disadvantage some of the citizens of the kingdom. Then Gyges
ancestors action would not be aimed toward the right people.
The fourth question would be if Gyges ancestor acted with the right motive. Here
again we have to take the situation into consideration. One could argue that if the states
situation was described above, the ancestor Gyges seems to have had the right motive in trying
to overturn the king to make a better sovereign for the state or kingdom. But the story does not
give us this detail. Therefore, we have to assume that he acted out of pure lust for power which
certainly would not make the right motive in an Aristotelian way. Along with this goes the
answer to the last question: whether Gyges ancestor acted in the right way. Whatever the
situation of the state is concerning this question, in either case he did not act in the right way
as there would have been plenty of other ways to turn over a king and implement a new
sovereign or even a government. For example, Gyges ancestor could have used the persuasive
strength of the magical ring and him being able to make himself invisible to convince men of
power to overturn the king.
Because the last part of the Aristotelian test (concerning the action being done in the
right way) fails whatever the circumstances of the situation of the state and Gyges ancestor
might be, according to Aristotles five-pronged test the ancestors action would be vicious and
therefore unjust.
11
Works Cited
Broadie, S., & Rowe, C. (2002). Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Grube, G., & revised by Reeve, C. (1992). Plato: Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing Company, Inc.
Robinson, T. (1995). Aristotle in Outline. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Urmson, J. (1988). Aristotle's Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
12
Assignment Questions
1. Present a careful account using clear citations from the Republic of Platos
conception of inner justice
1
: what is its structure in the tripartite conception of the soul?
Then explain why such an inner constitution leads to a happy life, in Platos view, such
that it would be irrational not to adopt and develop this sort of internal constitution, for
oneself and in the education of others.
2. Then consider 442d 444c, where Socrates claims that an internally just
1
person would
not commit any socially criminal or unjust
2
acts. Explain why Socrates might believe he
has established that this desirable effect would result from the internally just
1
structure
he has been presenting.
3. The present some strengths and weaknesses from Socrates view in 2. Do this carefully,
by considering the behavior of the ancestor of Gyges. Focus particularly on whether the
Socratic conception of justice
1
can explain why Gyges ancestor behaved as he did, and
whether or not that conception can explain what was wrong or unjust
2
about his acts.
4. Finally, consider how Aristotle might have proceeded to assess the behavior of Gyges
ancestor, in a different way. Be detailed, not sketchy here, with a detailed presentation
of several relevant ideas from Aristotle. If you can, consider if Aristotles approach is
superior to Platos, or not, and why: but it is not necessary to do this, especially if you
have provided in-depth and lengthy analysis in the previous parts of the question.