"Plato's Defense of Justice," Theoretical Critique Essay

Excerpt #1:

Many Americans correlate the symbolic scale as the epitome of justice in the United States; yet the definition of justice remains ambiguous. Justice may mean a balance between guilt and innocence to one or the balance between the haves and have-nots to another. What Plato attempted to document was a clear Socratic definition of justice as well as its counterpart of injustice. Throughout The Republic, four definitions of justice are derived from conversations among Socrates and various characters. In Book IV, Plato finally reached his last definition of justice and used that definition as a focal point for the foundation of Kallipolis. One central theme of Plato’s political theory is defending the life of justice against the claim that it is not worthwhile and I would argue Plato fails to support his final definition of justice. I will provide specific examples from the text and logical reasoning to support my argument that through Socratic dialogue, Plato contradicts his very own definition of justice and fails to make a case.

Excerpt #2:

Prior to his explanation of justice, Plato mentions that a city is correctly founded and completely good when it is based upon the cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage and temperance (Plato, 135, 139). Justice is in many ways of combination of these three virtues. Plato wrote, “Justice is doing one’s own work and not meddling with what is not one’s own” (Plato, 139, 140). In other words, Plato’s final definition of justice is a sort of functional specialization in that it proposes each individual perform work which is naturally best suited for him or her. Meddling and exchange among the three classes in this “city of words” is the greatest injustice according to the text and will lead to the demise of the city (Plato, 140). By meddling, Plato means for example, if a guardian were also a craftsman or if philosopher were also a guardian, etc… Rather than justice existing as a virtue in and of itself, Plato explained that justice was a well-ordered soul comprised of reason, spirit and appetite (Plato, 143, 146). Reason and rational thinking would ideally govern appetite (desires) and spirit (emotions). This order of the soul resulted in a system of three social classes within the city: rulers (philosopher Kings), guardians and producers (Plato, 140). Plato’s definition of justice creates a sort of solid harmonious order in that the rulers only make the rules, the guardians only guard the city and enforce the rules and the producers work one job/craft and obey the rules. This system assumes that those below the rulers are incapable of knowing what is best for them and need the rulers to tell them how to live (Plato, 129, 171). This would explain why Socrates suggested the banishment of poets and storytellers as they presented a threat to this order of the city.

Excerpt #3:

Socrates said that a life without examination is worthless and essentially provoked those around him to think critically and ask questions. Plato’s definition of justice of doing one’s own work which is naturally best suited and not meddling is fundamentally a system of classes which promotes order and emphasizes functional specialization. However, for the two lower classes, the guardians and the producers, justice is accepting one role for a lifetime and obeying all the city rules set forth by the ruler. In addition to this, children are assigned jobs and specific roles to play in the city at a younger age based on the metal mixture within them determined by the Philosopher King. People did not necessarily get to choose what role they would play, or were they permitted to question anything, or even to examine their lives or change roles as this would cause disorder. Various holes exist in Plato’s correlation between justice and other themes of the ideal city of Kallipolis as discussed earlier in this paper. I suppose there truly is no right or wrong answer when considering whether a life of justice is worthwhile or not. Moreover, I suppose there truly is no universal definition of justice which can be applicable and undisputable in all or even most cases. It seems to me that justice is more or less an inherent virtue that should be free and open to all. It is through this virtue of justice that people discover a sense of moral worth and a life worth living. Plato’s vision of the ideal, just city is nothing more than an authoritative, control-crazed regime with an implemented type of social caste system upon its people. Who determines which people are just and which people are unjust? Is it possible for seemingly just individuals to really be unjust at heart? Socrates dedicated his life to the examination of others’ lives as well as his own for he felt that truth was power and wisdom was uncharacteristic of men. Yet his version of a life worth living consists of certain mental freedoms (examination) along with the opportunity for individuals to think critically and become independent thinkers of the state. A central theme to Plato’s political theory is defending the life of justice against the claim that it is not worthwhile, and it is my belief that he failed in making his case.