In Plato’s Republic, Justice is the most prominent issue in the discussion of the formation of an ideal republic. I feel that this is a very misleading basis for creation of a society or political system. Plato/ Socrates approaches the idea of justice as an achievable goal, with the point or purpose behind the development of a political system ensuring a just society. Justice is neither an achievable goal, nor a desirable one. There is no need for perfect justice in an unjust world.
Plato’s ideal republic is formed around ideal actors, who neither represent humanity or society in any realistic sense. Given the actors Plato uses to establish his three-class system, one could ideally use any government system to achieve a perfect and just society. Suggesting that designing a government in ideal settings is effective both silly and naive. I put forward that the first thing one must establish in a society is INJUSTICE. The inevitability of conflict within any society will inherently create an unjust society, so by controlling for the inevitable, we are able to create a more structurally sound, and ideally superior, social structure. A noble lie must be told, but it must not be one of promise, but of division. Take the government system in the novel 1984. By establishing a constant threat, and ensuring constant struggle for survival, the government is able to exercise complete control over all aspects of the society. Although this idea violates many of the principles of western liberal thought process, it is inherently as sound as Plato’s classist suggestion of three hierarchically identical classes.
If injustice was accounted for within a system, and possibly shifted around towards different part of society, the greatest good for the greatest number of people could be achieved far more efficiently, and for longer, than any system hell bent on equality. Think of our modern social system, and how unjust our “fair” and balanced system is. As an upper middle class white male, I immediately have advantages in life that few in this world can ever parallel. To suggest that my life can be compared to other, less advantaged individuals within our educational, judicial, or even economic world is ignorance bordering on insanity. Although I admit that our society is getting much closer to achieving a just society in many ways, and we have pushed forward the ideals of justice more so than most cultures, I do not think that our successes are indicative of a change in human nature or society. Rather, we are an outlier, and inevitably our society will crumple back into the division and chaos that our species so woefully ignores.
Although I agree with you in several points, I want to bring up another thought. If I got your last paragraph right, the goal of a state system (or constitution, or law-system) should be, to create more equality in our lives. As a believer in liberal individualism, I think that equality itself is an expression of injustice. As you said, the world, we live in, is unjust and I would like to add that human beings don't have the power (nor the will) to fix this, what can be interpreted as a "mistake of nature". Rather then spending so much energy in thinking, how we could overcome these differences, we should open our minds and think of, how we could use these differences for our purposes. By creating the theory of a state, that we discussed in class, Plato gives us a very good example of how we could benefit from the differences, which are part of human beings and our world. Because of this reasons, I think, Plato's ideas are very close-connected to our reality.
ReplyDeleteAlthough we face all thee differences between humans and their lives, we all have one thing in common: The quest for our ergon!
I understand your argument, but doesn’t wondering what would happen "if injustice was accounted for within a system" suggest that injustice exists at all within the ideal society? What Plato gives us is meant to serve as a philosophical ideal that societies should aim towards; he is not arguing for the reality or possibility of Utopia. I understand your dislike for the notion of "designing a government in ideal settings," because it is undeniably important to think critically about the reality of inequality that undoubtedly exists in the vast majority (if not all) social systems. But as we discussed in class, we have to remember that nearly every practical reality that dictates our social and political systems is in fact based on an ideal. Therefore, I think it is dangerous to dismiss the importance of ideals or models given that they serve as the foundations for every “real-world” reality.
ReplyDeleteThe point of the Socrates's conversations that we have read is to define justice. Justice is an ideal and when defining an ideal, you must assume ideal circumstances. Socrates would not necessarily argue for any specific type of government, but rather one that would best allow for the three classes to exist in harmony with one another in a hierarchical fashion. It is clear that the classes in "1984" are anything but harmonious. It is hierarchical, oppressive and all manner of other adjectives that come to mind when one speaks injustice. To talk about how an ideal society is impossible to create is to completely ignore the point of the conversation--to define justice.
ReplyDeleteEquality is something that no good government legitimately attempts to achieve. What our government is supposed to strive for is equality before the law and that is all anyone can ever hope for in a just society. Circumstances are different for all. Some are better at running than others, etc.
Simply by virtue of the fact that justice is an ideal, and by its very nature impossible to achieve, is not reason enough for the human race not to strive for it. In fact, it makes the journey that much more noble. Although we will never actually reach a supremely just society, we can get close enough.
As stated, Plato's just society is merely an idea of the perfect society; however, his theory of an ideal society contains expectations that are impossible for even the most civilized nations to conform to. Plato's just society is made up of just individuals. Parallel to his society, "an individual has these same three parts in his soul:" reason, spirit, and desire. The balance of these three elements which equates to justice is impossible to maintain once achieved. It's merely human nature for reason to give in to one's desires from time to time. In reality, many use their reason to attain their desires. If the individual cannot maintain a just character, then a city cannot be expected to either. I understand that this ideal society is just a theory, but none of its key points are realistic.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with James in this discussion. The point of Socrates’s conversation is to define and understand the meaning of justice. He is not arguing for a just society or even that one such society could exist; rather, he is trying to use an ideal just society as a means to define what justice is and what justice should entail.
ReplyDeleteAs for the last part of this discussion I think it is unfair to dismiss the idea of equality. Yes it is true that people of certain classes (or intelligence levels, etc.) will never truly be equal; however, I believe that people should have the right and the chance to obtain some form of equality in an unfortunate situation. Just because one is born in a certain economic situation or in a certain race should not keep them from striving for a life where they can succeed just like the upper classes as well as the rest of society. As Florian pointed out, we as a whole should find a way to work together with the different skills and purposes we were given even if we are not all equals. We may not be equals but we are all human beings striving for the best life we can lead.