Plato’s Theory of Justice
Ish Mishra
Plato’s theory of justice quite different
from and contrary to the justice as we understand it in constitutional-legal
terms, can be precisely summed in following two quotes from the Republic:
“Justice is having and doing what is
one’s own” and “A just man is a man just in the right place doing his
best and giving full equivalent of what he receives”.
In
Liu of Introduction
Intellectuals reflect upon their own
conditions. Plato’s immediate ambience was the democratic Athens, which had
been in the state of a prolonged Peloponnesian war with Sparta
(431-404 BC) that had ended in Athenian defeat; overthrow of democratic
government and banishment of the prominent democratic leaders in BC 404. No one
is a winner in a war; both are losers, as far as the people of warring
countries are concerned. It wrecks not
only economy and society but also the individual and social psyche. Before that
Athens and Sparta were allies in Greco-Persian war (499-49 BC). It was a
dilapidated post war economy and demoralized society. With the overthrow of
rein of thirty that was installed by Spartan victors, democratic leaders in the
restored democracy were taken over by a sense of insecurity and in desperation
tried and executed Socrates, Plato’s teacher. To salvage Athens from its
economic and political strife that is from injustice, Plato presents a
blue print of an alternative system -- the Ideal state ruled by
professionally trained rulers, the philosophers, the political class,
with the help of strong coercive apparatus, the warrior class.
In modern democracies too, there is political
class. Plato’s political class consists of the philosophers, whose realm of
excellence is reason. They undergo a 50 years long rigorous education to acquire
the wisdom, the ability of comprehending the Idea of the Good and thereby the
competence to practice the art of governance. The virtue of this political
class is knowledge. They are deprived of the private family and property as a
safety measure against any possible chances of their being corrupt; indulgent;
sectarian or sloth. They do not live in palatial houses but in the barracks
with their likes and the members of the auxiliary. In contrast the virtue of
modern political class is ability to win the election by any means, verifying
Machiavellian maxis, end justifies the means[1].
And the end is, attaining; retaining; expanding power. Many of its
members have good records of criminal cases against them. Most of them are
billionaires and spend huge amounts, in election campaigns. The US President,
contesting for the second term, spends only 3 years in office, the 4th
year is spent in fund raising. One’s ability to raise funds generally
corresponds to ability to win the elections. There is no scope here for
detailed comparison, the political class as envisioned in Plato’ republic has
single motive of practicing the art of governance with perfection, i.e.
selflessly pursuing the good of the people. Modern political class is concerned
with its own wellbeing and perpetuation of the ruthless exploitation and
oppression of the people by the global capital[2]. Members of the modern
political classes are not Platonic philosophers but Machiavellian Princes.
Unlike the modern political classes, which appeal to sentiments while trying to
blunt rationality for seeking power at any cost, even at the cost destroying
composite culture of the country, the Platonic political class, the Guardians
of the Ideal State appeal to the reason and seek to ensure justice for the
entire society, of course the justice as envisioned and defined in the Republic.
Here we shall be talking only about
Platonic ruling classes.
The central concern of Plato in Republic is
justice, as is obvious from the subtitle of the text, “A treatise concerning
justice”. It begins with the question of justice and concludes with the answer
that justice lies in the harmonious, hierarchal well-ordering of society.
Platonic concept of justice is not based on equality of humankind but just
opposite of it. It is not equality but the harmonious, well-ordering that
institutionalizes the inequality. According to Will Durant, during the 12 years
of his wandering after the execution of his Guru, Socrates in BC 399, Plato
wandered up-till the banks of Ganga. Even if had not he would have come in
contact with Indian scriptures via Egyptians.[3] Plato’s “harmonious well
ordering” of inequalities takes me to the childhood memories of my village. It
was a “harmoniously well ordered” village society without any tension, at least
over the surface. Though, the cracks in the prevalent social order had begun,
but were only microscopically visible. Everyone was doing their respective
works, as ordained and prescribed by the Shastras, the four-fold Varnashram
social-social division and the corresponding code of conduct. Plato’s Ideal
state, the rule of Philosopher over the economically productive classes, with
the help of the armed auxiliaries, appears to be a refined and edited version
of the Varnashram code of conduct. In Varnashram paradigm, the leader of the
armed classes (Kshatriyas) rule over the people on the advice of the
intellectuals (Brahmins). In Plato’s Ideal State, the intellectuals do not take
any chance, they rule themselves. The equivalent of the fourth, the lowest
class of Indian model, the Shudra, is missing in Plato’s Ideal State. The slave
can be considered as the near equivalent. But the slave treated as the property
of the master, an ‘animate tool’, in Aristotle’s words[4], is conspicuously absent from
Plato’s discourse. Either he took it for granted or did not find ubiquitous
institution of slavery worth reckoning.
For the definition of justice, Plato
theoretically creates the Ideal State, from the beginning, from the
point zero, of the human association, in a teleological manner. Though Plato’s
imagined, ‘naturally evolved’ first human association, the First City is
nothing but the fictionalized version of the then existing democratic Athens. The
Varnashram code of conduct, with reference to the Manusmriti[5], was created as philosophical
justification and source of validity of an already existing, institutionalized
order in the aftermath of Brahmanical counter revolution against the Buddhist
intellectual and social revolution[6]. The Ideal State of Plato’s Republic
was a plea for a desirable alternative to the existing democratic government,
which he considered government of fools and “vowed to destroy.”[7] To philosophically validate
the Varnashram social order, the myths of the Gods Brahma etc. were
created. Defying all the biological laws, Brahma, “the creator”, created
from his different organs four hierarchal classes – Brahmins (intellectuals)
from the head; Kshatriyas (the warriors) from the arms; economic classes from
the stomach and the lowest, the Shudra (the servant classes) from the feet[8]. Plato, to convince the
people of lower classes of their innate inferiority, invented the myth of
metals -- the medicinal lie or the Royal lie. The philosopher king
should propagate that the God has created people with the qualities of
different metals – gold; silver and the inferior metals, like bronze and
copper. Those who are created by God with the qualities of gold are destined to
be philosopher; those with that of silver are destined to be warriors and the
rest the economic producers[9]. And this arrangement is
irreversible. As the doctor can lie to the patient and patient cannot to doctor,
in the same way the king could tell lie to the people but people cannot. The
right to spread lies belongs only to the ruler.
Plato’s project of Ideal State remains
unrealized, as envisioned in Republic. He himself was disillusioned with
its feasibility in his last days and theorizes the “second best state” based on
law, in his last voluminous work, the Laws. As his student Aristotle had
pointed that he thought about only the theoretical best without taking into
consideration, the practicality and existing reality. Idea of the ideal
emanates and is related to the existing reality, not the other way. The
universals do not create particulars but existing of particulars determines the
nature of the universal. Plato’s ideal state ruled by the philosopher still
remains an idea and the Varnashram system, as an idea and institution has yet
not been totally banished.
After this little longer introduction, in the
following pages I shall try to critically summarize the initial (Book I –III)
processes and points in Plato’s philosophical journey in search of the ‘truth’,
the ‘justice’.
Basic
Assumption
Everything has an end
corresponding to its nature, says Plato. Then end of eyes is to see clearly,
similarly the end of the state is to govern well. Like everything else the
philosopher too has an end. With that end in mind, he makes certain axiomatic
assumptions. Plato’s end it to have a state with ‘good governance’, the Ideal
State in place of democratic governance in which the entire population is the
member of the political community. As has been discussed in the section dealing
with the theory of ideas, for Plato the essence lies not in the object but in
its idea. Object is just the shadow, appearance of the invisible essence. A
visible human is only appearance of the essence – soul.
·
Tripartite composition of soul (see theory of
soul of the series.);
·
Men (Humans) are, by nature, interdependent
for their needs;
·
Everyone is intended with a nature and the
realization of that nature ought to be the end of life;
·
One can do only one thing appropriately and
hence one ought to do only what he is intended by nature.
·
Governance is an art needing specific ability.
n I
The
Setting
As is well known, Plato’s works are in
“dialogue” format, i.e. in the form of debate and discussion, with Socrates as
the protagonist, except in the Laws[10].
This dialogue, Republic, is in the form of reminiscence of Socrates.
As a very systematic scholar, Plato first critiques the prevailing views,
rejects them and then gives his own views. The views he rejects, puts them in
the mouth of other characters in the narrative and puts the views, he supports
in the mouth of Socrates. In the first scene Socrates, while returning from a
festive fare, is on the way intercepted and invited by Polymarcus for a dinner-discussion
at his place. Public discussions and debates (Shastrarth in the Indian
context), in ancient societies, provided platforms for dissemination of
knowledge, as well as for intellectual duals. Apart from Socrates, other
characters of the drama are: Cephalus, an old rich business man; his son Polemrachus;
Thrasymachus, a Sophist scholar; Glaucon and Adeimantus, Socrates’s pupils; and
Cleitophon.
After exchange of the greetings, Socrates
asks Cephalus about his feelings of being wealthy. Apart from other things, he
included that being just as one of the attributes of being value and gives cue
to Socrates to initiate the discussion on justice, the reminisces of which is Republic.
Cephalus answers in terms of prevailing notions of morality that justice was
paying back one’s debts and retires to offer sacrifice to Gods, leaving the
stage for the next generation and his son Polemachus takes entry to supplements
the father’s answer. The views Plato criticizes and rejects are categorized as,
traditional; radical and pragmatic views of justice.
Traditional view of justice
The spokespersons of this view in the Republic
are Cephalus and Polemarchus. Cephalus replied in terms of prevalent moral
values that justice lies in telling the truth and paying debt. To this Socrates
says that in normal conditions these are
the normal morality, not justice. “Suppose that a friend when in his right mind
has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right
mind, ought I to give them back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I
should be right in doing so, any more than they would say that I ought always
to speak the truth to one who is in his condition”[11]. As mentioned above, Cephalus
after giving his opinion retires for performing sacrifice and his son Polemarchus
enters the scene. He added “justice is giving to each man what is proper to
him” and “justice is art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies”[12].
Plato, through Socrates, extensively argues
against the traditional views expressed through father son-duo by using various
ancient sayings; examples and metaphors and rejects them. Socrates uses the
simile of sickness, which is cured by
physician by giving the sick parson medicine, “what is proper to him”. “But when a man is well, … there is no need of
a physician, in the same way as one who is not on a voyage has no need of a
pilot” in the same way as there is no need of a war ally in time of peace. But
justice is not situation centric, it is infinite and universal.
Justice is the quality of soul, it cannot be
art. Art can be good or bad but justice, being the highest virtue of the soul,
is always good. It is difficult to distinguish between friend and enemy, as
one’s appearance does not really reflect his real essence. A just soul follows
the path of goodness and cannot do evil to anyone. He considers it as sadism
and sadism is a contradiction in terms with justice. He argues that doing good
to friends may be a just act but harming anyone, even an enemy, cannot be the
objective of justice, as evil cannot be removed by counter evil. Tit for tat is
not justice. More over this view presents justice as relationship between two
individuals. Justice is not the quality of only good individual life but also
of good social life[13].
Radical View of Justice
The views expressed by Thrasymachus, are
called radical view of justice. Thrasymachus, who was at unease and “He roared
out to the whole company: What folly, Socrates, has taken possession of you
all? ……”. He expressed his observation as “justice is nothing else than the
interest of the stronger”[14]. This is like ‘the might is
right’ that historically has not been very far from reality, but Plato was a
philosopher of what ought to be. As the rulers are most powerful in any
society, they make laws in their own interest and hence working in the interest
of the ruler is justice and following one’s own is injustice. Wise men can
follow their own interest by being unjust. He concludes that an unjust man is
wiser; stronger and happier[15]. Socrates through point-to-point arguments
rejects this view[16].
Firstly Socrates of Republic rejects
his view that self-interest of the ruler is justice. One of the key
contributions of Plato to the world of political philosophy is his idea of
governance as an art. And artist does not follow self-interest but the interest
of the subject. The subject of the ruler is the people and his interest lies
not in pursuing the self-interest but in ensuring the well-being of the people.
Kautilya also s The way the physician does not pursue the self-interest but
that of the patient. Teaching is an art. Objective of the teacher is to help
students in becoming critical, responsible citizens with theoretical clarity;
to help them in acquiring abilities to scientifically comprehend the world and
determine his role to better it. Plato
rejects the concept of politics or governance as a consequence force or
muddling of numbers but of scientific deliberations. The interest of ruler lies
in the interest of people. This maxim finds an echo in Kautilya’s Arthshstra[17] around a century later.
Secondly, the unjust person cannot be
happier than the just. According to Plato, happy is one who knows his nature,
ability and limitations and places himself accordingly and does not into the
race of competition. Happiness lies in realizing one’s nature. A teacher feels
happy by realizing his nature, that is, by having a good engrossing class with
the students’ participation. Quoting a section of dialogue would not be
inappropriate.
“Then
an evil soul must necessarily be an evil ruler and superintendent, and the good
soul a good ruler?
Yes, necessarily.
And
we have admitted that justice is the excellence of the soul, and injustice the
defect of the soul?
That
has been admitted.
Then
the just soul and the just man will live well, and the unjust man will live
ill?
That
is what your argument proves.
And
he who lives well is blessed and happy, and he who lives ill the reverse of
happy?
Certainly.
Then
the just is happy, and the unjust miserable? So be it. But happiness and not
misery is profitable.
Of-course.
Then,
my blessed Thrasymachus, injustice can never be more profitable than justice”[18].
Thirdly, the unjust cannot be wiser
than just as wisdom lies in realizing, as mentioned above, in knowing one’s
limitations and act accordingly and not in indulgence into competition. And
acting according to one’s nature is justice and hence a just man is wiser than
the unjust.
And finally an unjust person cannot be
stronger than the just. For Plato, strength lies in unity and unity is possible
on if people living together in a community have commitment to certain common principles
and common wellbeing of all. The consensus to the principles is possible only
in a just society.
With the refutation of Thrasymachus’s
views ends the Book I and also vocal presence of Thrasymachus.
Pragmatic
view of justice
The
spokespersons of this view that considers justice to be the “child of fear” and
the “necessity of the weaker”[19] are Glaucon and his brother
Adeimantus. Anticipating Hobbes many century later, it assumes a state of
nature where everyone is free to do injustice and become victim of it. To get
out of it people enter into an agreement of not doing injustice to anyone and
thereby not being victim of injustice from any one. A code of justice is
created to make the agreement functional. Thus men recognize their natural
tendencies of injustice but pretend to be just under the fear of the force of
law.[20]
Socrates refutes and rejects this view
with systematic arguments that justice is not an artificial virtue that
emanates from a contract. Justice is innate quality of soul and conscience. It
does not depend upon a contract nor needs any external recognition, it exists
by itself[21].
After saying this he begins to theoretically construct ideal state to define
justice.
n II
Plato’s
Concept of Justice
After arguing against above three views of
justice, on the request of Galucon and Adeimantus, Socrates in Republic
sets out to define justice in society and in individual. “Justice, which is the
subject of our enquiry, is, as you know, sometimes spoken of as the virtue of
an individual, and sometimes as the virtue of a State”[22]. Plato applies teleological
and architectonic methodology to explain the concept of justice beginning from the
starting point of human association, on the basis of his basic assumptions. Above
quote indicates that justice operates at two levels – at the level of
Individual and at the level of state or the society as in his opinion, state is
individual writ large. Then in the larger unit, the quantity of justice is
likely to be larger and more easily discernible. “I propose therefore that we
enquire into the nature of justice and injustice, first as they appear in the
State, and secondly in the individual, proceeding from the greater to the
lesser and comparing them.”[23] He begins to construct the
society from the beginning, when different people interdependent natures for
meeting their survival needs on the principles of division of labour and
exchange. He calls this naturally evolved association as the first city.
The
First City
All the writings are reflections on the
contemporary state of affairs, great writings become all time classics. The Republic
being the foundational text in the history of western political philosophy,
still remains relevant even after around two and half a century. “One of the
main causes Plato’s pervasive and persuasive influence throughout the history
the ablest exponent of the aristocratic theory of state and the acutest critic
of democratic way of life”[24]. History of evolution of
civilization hitherto has been the history of evolution of inequalities. Plato
provides their rationalization on the basis of presumed innate abilities or
nature. Someone’s nature or ability may be of a farmer and someone’s that of a
carpenter and so on. As par Plato’s one of the basic assumption one should do
only one thing suited to his nature and accordingly he theorizes the principle
of division of labour.
“A State, I said, arises, as I conceive, out
of the needs of mankind; no one is self-sufficing, but all of us have many
wants. Can any other origin of a State be imagined?” tells Socrates to Glaucon.
Justice is the original principle laid down at the foundation of state, “that
one man should practice one thing only and that thing to which his nature was
best adapted. ….. And if we imagine the State in process of creation, we shall
see the justice and injustice of the State in process of creation also.”[25] As people have many needs
and wants “and many persons are needed to supply them, one takes a helper for
one purpose and another for another; and when these partners and helpers are
gathered together in one habitation the body of inhabitants is termed a State”[26]. He begins with basic
necessities of food, dwelling and cloth and the like. “Barest notion of state
must include four or five men.”[27] If everyone produces for everything himself to
fulfill his needs one would not be able to do it efficiently and hence as is
one of his basic assumptions that one should do only one thing to which his
nature is suited[28].
This community based on the principle of division of labour and exchange of
economic needs is called the First City. The principle of division of
labour enhances the productivity and gives rise to more specialized crafts. Plato’s
theory of division of the labour anticipates Adam Smith centuries later for the
enhancement of the Wealth of Nations but not the equivalent exchange.
The entire product of producers is appropriated by the non-producer capitalist,
the producers get meager wages to be able to survive to reproduce[29].
With refinement of crafts people develop new
tastes and wants that he calls artificial needs. “Let us then consider, first
of all, what will be their way of life, now that we have thus established them.
Will they not produce corn, and wine, and clothes, and shoes, and build houses
for themselves? And when they are housed, they will work, in summer, commonly,
stripped and barefoot, but in winter substantially clothed and shod. They will
feed on barley-meal and flour of wheat, baking and kneading them, making noble
cakes and loaves; these they will serve up on a mat of reeds or on clean
leaves, themselves reclining the while upon beds strewn with yew or myrtle. And
they and their children will feast, drinking of the wine which they have made,
wearing garlands on their heads, and hymning the praises of the gods, in happy
converse with one another. And they will take care that their families do not
exceed their means; having an eye to poverty or war.”[30] And “of course they must have a relish–salt,
and olives, and cheese, and they will boil roots and herbs such as country
people prepare; for a dessert we shall give them figs, and peas, and beans; and
they will roast myrtle-berries and acorns at the fire, drinking in moderation.
And with such a diet they may be expected to live in peace and health to a good
old age, and bequeath a similar life to their children after them.”[31]
The above mentioned first city is the edited
version of the existing system in which the entire population was the part of
the economic class based on the system of division of labour and exchange and
the market. But the governance, in Palo’s view that he repeats so often in Republic,
is a superior art, not a matter of force or number but ability to
comprehend the Idea of Good and act accordingly. And only wise, the highly educated
philosophers have that ability.
The Ideal State
After describing this gathering as a rustic,
happy egalitarian First City, he cleverly extends the principles of division of
labour and exchange to create a hierarchal second city --- the Ideal
State. The first city is unguided by the reason.[32] Thus evolved luxurious and
prosperous first city gets into “feverish condition” caused by “expansion of
human wants”, as “the
country which was enough to support the original inhabitants will be too small now
and not enough”. For
the extended population describing this gathering as a happy egalitarian First
City, the community of “pigs”[33], he cleverly extends the
principles of division of labour and exchange to create a hierarchal second
city --- the Ideal State. For extension of territory and saving the
prosperity from the neighbors, a new class functionally specialized in war is
needed.
“Then without determining as yet whether war
does good or harm, thus much we may affirm, that now we have discovered war to be
derived from causes which are also the causes of almost all the evils in
States, private as well as public”.[34] As one person must do only
one thing, there is need of specialized class that is good at art of war -- the
class of warriors, the “watch dogs”. “Then it will be our duty to select, if we
can, natures which are fitted for the task of guarding the city”.[35] Using the tripartite theory
of soul he proves that those who excel in the faculty of spirit, the virtue of
which is courage, are ideally suited for it. The courage as virtue has been
discussed in the theory of soul section of this essay. “The feverish condition
is, however not limited to the threat of external war but also implies the
internal disruption or dissolution of the health and the balance of the first
city through internal unrest.”[36] And hence there arises need
of a special class of warriors. But this class drunk with power might
degenerate into praetorians and quarrel continuously among themselves and with
the members of producing classes. As mentioned above that Plato compares the
warriors, the defenders of the city as watch dogs, which are friendly with the
insiders and furious over outsiders by instinct. So to make the perfect watch
dogs they need training to imbue them with the principles that makes the city
worth defending.
Thus the need of the class of the warriors
(auxiliaries), leads to the need of another class to recruit and train this
class as well as future guardians. The characteristic virtue of his class is
wisdom in the same way as the characteristic virtue of fighters and producers
are courage and temperance respectively. The first city according to him was
the result of the natural evolution, the “second” or the “ideal” city of the
republic is the product of rational planning and direction. This Platonic
community is the first example of the planned state. The recruitment and
training is done through education that is separately discussed in the theory
of education. To convince the auxiliaries and producers Plato advises the
ruling class, the wise, the philosopher to spread the medicinal lie (the myth
of metals) as discussed in the introduction. Thus he theoretically constructs the Ideal
State for justice, in which everyone has his own and does his own. In the first
city the entire population was part of the division of labour economy, like the
entire population was the members of the political community in Athens, in
Ideal state only around 80% remain into economic community rest distinguish
themselves as the ruling classes – the guardians and the auxiliaries. Thus
Plato divides the egalitarian, ‘happy’ first city into three exclusive classes
– economic; coercive and political. In fact the coercive class is the state
apparatus and that is why the upper two classes are clubbed together. The
existing states are the degenerated form of Plato’s Ideal. The personnel in the
state apparatuses, though belong to working collective in the capitalist state,
yet is not part of working class in Marxist sense, but a class apart, like
Plato’s auxiliaries.
Thus Plato cleverly extends principles of the
division of labour of material production and exchange to divide the society
into hierarchically order of the classes of producers and non-producers, in
which non producers rule over the producing masses. The relationship between
carpenter and the farmer is not the same as the relationship between a farmer
and the philosopher kings. This ideal virtually boils down to be a aristocracy.
The society is just if it is harmoniously united, i.e. one doing only that for
which he is ordained to.
The main difference between a
craftsman and a philosopher in the Republic is the difference between
political wisdom and technical knowledge as he explains in the theory of
knowledge. Only philosophers have the he insight that a high, specialized
learning, needed to comprehend the human affairs and deal with them. Material
and exposure of a crafts man is finite limited to only visible world in
contrast the material and exposure of philosopher to the world of ideas, which
is infinite and unlimited. Effectively Plato’s notion of justice is creation of
Aristocratic community, in which the Aristocrats, emanating from planned
breeding and education, a special theory of eugenics, as is dealt in details in
the section dealing with the theory of communism. Communism and education are
two pillars of the Ideal State.
The
Social Justice
Plato theory of justice, i.e. the theory of the ideal state
is organic theory. As mentioned in the introduction, Plato considers ‘state’ as
‘individual writ large’. Therefore he theorizes not only social justice, i.e.
the justice in society, as discussed above, but also individual justice, i.e.
the justice in individual and links them. A just state is the state ruled by
philosophers; defended by warriors and material needs are supplied by the
producing classes. A state can be just only with just individuals, who are
ready to accept the order in conformity with their nature. How to convince the
inferior classes? Plato gives the theory of meritocracy through his theory of
education that is separately dealt with. Also he invents many myths, like the
myth of the metal mentioned above. It should be noted that Platonic social
justice is not only different from but the reverse of the contemporary
discourse on social justice aimed at ending the class/caste hierarchy. Platonic
social justice is, as witnessed above, aimed and creating and perpetuating
class hierarchy.
Individual Justice
“The
state is not known by the quality of oak and rocks but by the character of
individuals living in it”[37]. The justice in individual is possible only if
the elements of soul are well ordered and harmoniously united in conformity to
its tripartite structure. The inferior elements, the spirit and appetite are
controlled by reason, which the willingly obey, in the same way as the classes,
the warriors and producers, whose realms of excellence are spirit and appetite
respectively willingly obey the dictates of the class, whose realm of
excellence is reason.
Some
observation
Before
concluding this discussion with a critical note, let us see major points
emerging from the above discussion.
·
It is not a legal but moral concept that does
not need any legal code of conduct to guide the philosopher king. He is the
embodiment of wisdom.
·
It involves division of labour among the
producers – non-hierarchical,
technical division of labour on the one hand and the hierarchical class
division on the other.
·
It is functional specialization in accordance
with one’s nature
·
It is a theory of non-interference.
Respective classes must not encroach into the realm of other classes.
·
It is also architectonic. To define justice
it constructs the edifice of the Ideal state beginning from the laying of the
foundation.
·
It is neither just functional specialization
nor the departmental excellence, these are its just the conditions. Justice is
the coordinating virtue of all the virtues of the soul.
In
lieu of conclusion
Plato’s concept of justice is not the
justice, as understood in juridical-legal sense. There is no law. The ruler,
being the perfect embodiment of wisdom and virtues, is the law in him-self. He
is capable of grasping and ensuring people’s wellbeing with the help of state’s
coercive apparatus. There can be no limitation of law over the ruler. This has
given chance to his critics to call him the first fascist[38]. His unselfish commitment to
his duty, ensuring the wellbeing of the, is projected as unchallengeable as he
has no property and family under the scheme of communism of property and the
family. Defying Platonic link between honesty and family and property, we find
many examples in modern democracies, batcher or married bachelor members of the
political class ensuring the wellbeing of capitalists on the cost of people’s
well-being[39].
Effectively it is a theory of a social code of conduct in a hierarchically
divided society, like Manusmriti. The source of validity in Republic is
relativity of rationality and not divinity, in Manusmriti, it is the
Gods. It is a theory of temperateness, a moral value and not the justice. It prescribes the code of conduct for various
classes of limiting their acts within their respective spheres and not invades
others in the tripartite social structure. What if “the harmonious well-ordered
unity”, the epitome of justice is disturbed by clash of wills or interest?
Plato does not take cognizance of this possibility, but implication of his
discussion on the need of a specialized class of fighters, is that it shall be
dealt with coercion. It is a theory of total subordination of individual to
state that ruled by philosophers is infinite and absolute.
This theory emphasizes on excessive
unity of the ruling classes -- philosophers and the soldiers -- and excessive
separation from the masses, the vast majority of the economic classes, which
are conditions and the part of the state. Manusmriti was created to the
existing four-fold hierarchical social order with huge difference between lower
and higher classes. Republic pleads for creation of such social division
in the context of his contemporary social and political equality, though
economic inequality did exist apart from the inhuman institution of slavery.
Aristotle takes its cognizance and stated that there were two cities in every
city, the city of the rich and the city of the poor. Plato, an aristocrat,
belonging to the “class of gainfully unemployed”[40], is not bothered about
economic inequality but political equality, notwithstanding the intellectual
inequality. His main concern was the participatory democracy, as it existed in his
contemporary Athens, in which all the freemen were members of the political
community. His problem was political parity of intellectually ‘unequal’ people.
How can a cobbler; carpenter; farmer or so sit on judgment on general of
generals at par with intellectually superiors like him? In his view, politics is an art to be practiced
only by virtuous, virtue is knowledge and the subject of knowledge is world of
ideas and the Idea of Good. His pessimism about potentially of perfection in
ordinary people makes him to feel that only a small number of people have
aptitude for knowledge that is refined by education. Hence his famous statement
that philosophers should be kings or the existing kings and princes must be
instructed into philosophy. He tried to teach philosophy to the king of Syracuse,
Dionysius I and subsequently his so Dionysius II and failed[41].
To conclude the ‘in-lieu of conclusion’
it can be said that Plato’s vision of a just society and just individual is well
ordering of the classes and faculties of soul respectively on the basis of the hierarchy
of knowledge. Plato was against the democratic rule full of corruption, but
instead of reforming with equal universal education he opines for of its
destruction and its replacement by the rule of philosopher with the help of
armed auxiliary, the armed forces. If the Republic is taken out of its historical
context and placed it in the general context of the class societies, in which a
political class and a coercive state apparatus have been historical realities,
Plato’s scheme could be welcomed. Politically educated rulers without conflict
of interest should be preferred as they do not have private property and family
and live together in barracks and thereby devote themselves to ensure the wellbeing
of the people. Gandhi’s advice to the legislators to live in hostels and to
travel together to parliament in bus, bears Platonic influence.
25.08.2018
[1]
Prince
[2]
A note with reference to Biplab Dasgupta SAP & NEP
[3]
The Story of Phil
[4]
Note with reference to it
[5]
A brief note on Arthshastra and Dharmshastra traditions
[6]
Ambedkar
[7]
A note with references
[8]
A note
[9]
Rep
[10]
Note
[12]
Ibid p.183
[14]
Ibid p. 190
[15]
Ibid pp. 190-93
[16]
Ibid pp. 193-209
[17]
Note with the quote from AS
[18]
Republic, op.cit. pp.207-08
[19]
Ibid p. 213
[20]
Ibid pp. 212-215
[21]
Ibid
[22]
Ibid p. 221
[23]
Ibid
[25]
Ibid p. 278
[26]
Ibid p. 221
[27]
Ibid
[28]
Ibid pp. 223-24
[31]
Ibid p.225
[32]
Ibid
[33]
Ibid
[34]
Ibid p. 226
[35]
Ibid p. 227
[36]
Ebenstein, op. cit. p. 5
[37]
Ibid p.
[38]
Note
[39]
Note
[40]
Sudipta Kaviraj, Concept of Man in Political Theory, Social
Scientist, New Delhi, December 1979
[41]
Note
No comments:
Post a Comment