Free Will and Justice in Crito and The Republic

Reconciling Free Will and Determinism in Plato's Myth of Er

In the myth of Er, Plato examines the contrast between free will and determinism, and thus sets up his take on the nature of justice. Plato reconciles these concepts and relates them to his broader definition of justice. This paper compares this understanding with the definition of justice Socrates gives to in "Crito"; in doing so, it will reflect on how this worldview aligns with contemporary definitions of justice.

In the myth of Er, Plato presents a story in which souls get to choose their next life. The idea is that they are the masters of their own fate. However, the rub is that this choice is influenced by the soul's previous life experiences—the soul’s own habits, virtues, vices, attachments, and so on. What the soul has chosen to do before will determine what the soul wants to do next. This could possibly suggest an element of determinism—if, that is to say, the soul is not capable of changing its mind. But Plato reconciles these concepts by proposing that while our circumstances might be predetermined, how we respond to them does depend on our use of free will. We are never bound to act in any given way. We can choose, even if the circumstances might seem like we cannot. This balance between determinism (the hand we are dealt) and free will (how we play our hand) is actually at the heart of Platonic justice (Reid; Stent).

Plato's definition of justice in the "Republic" revolves around the idea of harmony and the proper functioning of each part within a whole. In the context of the soul, justice is achieved when reason, spirit, and appetite are in balance. This is the secret the motivates human action (Cooper). The myth of Er develops this idea by illustrating that souls have the autonomy to choose their fate, but this choice is informed by their inherent nature and past experiences—so whatever one has done with one’s life in the past determines how one will want to choose the next stage. If a soul has spent its time at war with, say, the will of God, it will not suddenly want to choose a next stage of life that commits itself to serving or praising or worshiping that same God. This, at least, is the logic of Plato’s thinking. Thus, justice, in this broader sense, involves an alignment between one's choices (free will) and the natural order of the universe (determinism) from a logical perspective.

In "Crito," Socrates' understanding of justice is demonstrated by his refusal to escape from prison, because doing so would violate the social contract he has with the state. This stance is actually consistent with the Platonic view in that it reflects a harmony between individual actions (Socrates' decision to stay) and a larger order (the laws of Athens).

If we compare Plato's view with contemporary notions of justice, one could discern a noticeable difference. Modern justice often emphasizes individual rights and freedoms and theoretically leans more towards free will. In contrast, Plato's justice, as seen in the myth of Er and in Crito, suggests a more intertwined relationship between individual choice and cosmic or social determinism. Personally, my definition of justice aligns more with Plato’s, as I find the modern idea of justice to be shallow and often illusory. It pays lip service to emphasizing individual autonomy and moral responsibility, yet the state often acts arbitrarily or even maliciously towards those it sees as a threat—sort of like how it went after Socrates, actually. I am not sure I would have the courage to accept the will of the state in that case—but then I am also not an old man who has lived a long life and is ready for the curtain bow.