FOLLOWING THE TWISTS AND TURNS OF THE ARGUMENT IN BOOKS ONE AND TWO OF PLATO'S REPUBLIC: WHAT IS JUSTICE? (In the following outline and questions, I refer to "Socrates" simply as a character in Plato's Republic without implying that his views represent those of the historical Socrates. Although I am not assigning book one of the Republic, I will refer to the arguments outlined below in class.)
1. SOCRATES AND POLEMARCHOS, COMMONSENSE NOTIONS OF JUSTICE
-First definition of justice (p. 129): "To give back what is owed to
each is just".
-Modified definition of justice (p. 130): "To do well to friends and
to do ill to enemies..."
-Socrates' question and answer method (the ELENCHUS) leads
Polemarchos to conclude, first, that justice is useful only for useless
things, then, that the just man is a kind of thief (p. 132).
Polemarchos isn't
convinced by Socrates' arguments and he simply restates his definition,
"Justice is to help your friends and hurt your enemies."
-Socrates uses the proposition that "it is just to harm the unjust and
to benefit the just" to lead Polemarchos to accept a modified
definition, "It is just to do well to the friend if he is good, and to
injure the enemy if he is bad." (p. 133)
-Socrates undermines this definition by arguing that "to injure anyone
is never just anywhere" because to injure a person makes them “worse in
human virtue” and, therefore, “more unjust” (p. 134). In
Socrates’
view, the proposed definition has led to a contradiction because it
can’t
be true that “the just make men unjust by justice.”
2. THRASYMACHOS' RADICAL REDEFINITION OF JUSTICE: THE ADVANTAGE
OF
THE STRONGER
-Thrasymachos is frustrated by the twists and turns of Socrates’
arguments and by the weakness of his opponents. He demands a
clear definition of justice from Socrates, "Don't say it is what is
due, or useful, or profitable, or what pays and what benefits, tell me
simply and clearly what you mean." (p. 135)
-Thrasymachos proposes a definition (p. 137), "Justice is nothing but
the advantage of the stronger," and he explains that "the same thing is
just
in all states, the advantage of the established government." This
is
a view similar to that expressed by the Athenians in the Melian
Dialogue.
-Socrates attacks this definition by showing that "sometimes the rulers
[unintentionally] command things evil for themselves, and it is just
for subjects to do them." (p. 139)
-Thrasymachos is not convinced by this objection and he restates his
definition with the qualification that "the ruler, as far as he is a
ruler,
makes no mistakes, and, making no mistakes, he lays down what is best
for
himself, and this the subject must do." (p. 140)
-Socrates' arguments by analogy lead him to conclude (p. 142) that "no
one else in any place of rule at all, insofar as he is a ruler,
enquires or commands what is his own advantage, but the advantage of
his subjects."
3. THE UNJUST PERSON LIVES BETTER THAN THE JUST PERSON
-Thrasymachos is still not convinced - and we may not be either.
He offers a new argument that "the most perfect injustice...makes the
unjust man most happy," and "injustice when it is grand enough is more
mighty
than justice, more generous, more masterly..." (pp. 142-43).
-Socrates shifts the argument to Thrasymachos' contention that "the
life of the unjust man is better than the life of the just man." (p.
146)
-First, Socrates overturns Thrasymachos' (p. 147) claim that injustice
is a virtue and justice is a vice (p. 150).
-Thrasymachos objects to Socrates' question and answer method, "Either
let me say all that I wish, or ask away if you wish me to answer
questions, and I will merely say, ‘Just so!’ and nod my head or shake
my head..."
(p. 150).
-Then, Socrates attacks the proposition that "injustice was both
stronger and more powerful than justice," (p. 151), by showing the just
"to be wiser and better and more able to act effectively, and the
unjust to be incapable of accomplishing anything together..." (p. 152)
4. THE CHALLENGE FOR SOCRATES: PROVE THAT IT IS GOOD TO BE JUST,
AND THAT THE JUST PERSON WILL LEAD A BETTER LIFE
-Socrates’ friends are not entirely convinced by his arguments that “it
is better to be just than unjust”, but they want him to convince
them. First, though, they will describe widely held views of
justice that Socrates will need to overcome...
-Glaucon describes three kinds of goods: what is good for its own sake
alone (e.g., joy), what is good for its own sake and for the other
benefits it brings (e.g., health), and what is burdensome in itself but
valued for the benefits it brings (e.g., exercise, medicine).
Socrates places
justice in the second category - the "noblest" one, but Glaucon says
that
most people put it in the last. (p. 155)
-Glaucon sets out to show, first, what "most people think justice is
and whence it comes"; second, that those who practice justice do so
unwillingly; third, that "the life of the unjust is much better than
the life of the
just" (p. 156)
-Look carefully at how he develops these three points with three
examples: first, the explanation of the origin and nature of justice
(p. 156); second, the story of GYGES
and the ring (pp. 157-58); third, the comparison of
the lives of the completely just and completely unjust men (pp.
158-59). Can you compare his account of the origin and nature of
justice with the views expressed by Thucydides in his reflections on
the revolution in Corcyra, or with the views expressed by the Melians
when they tried to persuade the Athenians to consider their own
self-interest? What is the view of
human nature that is implied by these stories? How does it
compare
with views put forth by Socrates in the Apology, or with the views of
the
author and different characters in Thucydides’ History of the
Peloponnesian
War?
-Adeimantos describes the way conventional notions of justice are
formed by what parents teach their children, what the poets say, and
what people believe about the gods (pp. 159-64)
Glaucon and Adeimantos appeal to Socrates to prove them wrong by showing exactly what justice is and what makes it a good thing. In response to this challenge, Socrates begins to "construct" the ideal society whose description occupies the next several books of the Republic. He does so because he argues that it will be easier to understand justice in the larger setting of the city, than in the smaller context of the individual person....