Plato's Republic: Why Its Justice Is Unjust to Humanity

Introduction: Plato's Vision of Justice

Since the beginning of recorded thought, many of the most conscious members of the human race have attempted to define justice and goodness — both for the individual and for society. In The Republic, one of the most noted Greek philosophers makes a similar attempt, though he is certainly not the first to do so. Plato aims to prove that being just is always better than being unjust. Because the primary goal of The Republic is to discuss what makes a just individual and society, Plato provides his readers with a perfect state and a perfect individual, suggesting that if his ideas were followed, the world would be encased in harmony. Although his ideas may lead to peace on earth, they are rather controversial.

Speaking through Socrates, Plato presents justice first as a property of a city, as he believes that "a good city would be just and that defining justice as a virtue of a city would help to define justice as a virtue of a human being" (Brown para. 1). In describing his just city, Plato argues that the best city would be composed of three classes. Guardians would make laws and guide the city; soldiers and warriors — auxiliaries — would defend it; and producers would follow the directives of the two higher classes and perform the tasks they are suited for in order to better society. Further, Plato suggests that the individual has components of the good city within himself or herself. The person's soul, according to Plato, has three components — the rational, the emotional, and the appetitive (the seat of desire). Just as the perfect city functions when the rational class guides the rest, Plato suggests that a person is just when reason governs emotion and appetite.

A major component of The Republic, then, is that some humans are not capable of leading themselves but must be governed by others. Plato argues that only certain guardians are capable of ruling society and making good decisions. It is because of their leadership that a state is a good state — not because of the auxiliaries or producers who make up that state. In the same vein, Plato argues that the human being as a whole is not capable of ruling him or herself; instead, a person's rationality is the only faculty capable of guiding a person toward a just life. While these may sound like perfect recipes for justice, their fault lies in the assumption that people are born with fixed roles and responsibilities they cannot transcend. Through an exploration of Plato's arguments regarding society and the individuals within it, one can understand that Plato's Republic is not conducive to modern conceptions of the person and the inner self.

The Structure of Plato's Ideal City

When one considers Plato's description of the perfect state, one quickly realizes that it is built entirely upon the designated roles of certain individuals. In the second book, as he begins to construct his city, Plato argues that "there are diversities of natures among us which are adapted to different occupations." Adeimantus and Plato further agree that a person does better work if he or she has only one job instead of many (Plato Book II). What Plato and Adeimantus are discussing here are the producers — those whose jobs are simply to make what is necessary for society to thrive, such as food, shoes, and buildings. Plato argues that each of these people should be designated to do only one job and leave "other things" aside (Plato Book II).

Plato and Adeimantus go so far as to argue that those who protect the city in times of war should not be drafted from other occupations. Instead, they agree that even a warrior, or auxiliary, should be chosen according to "the natural aptitude for his calling" (Plato Book II). While auxiliaries must be brave and able to fight for the state, they are not to be rulers themselves, as this is not their place. Plato notes that auxiliaries "are supporters of the principles of the rulers" (Book III). The guardians — rulers of the city — are likewise designated according to their natural ability and are not permitted to share roles with any other class. Guardians "preserve us against foreign enemies and maintain peace among our citizens at home, that the one may not have the will, or the others the power, to harm us" (Book III). They are not to be questioned even by those in the station just below them, since "auxiliaries were to be dogs, and to hear the voice of the rulers, who are their shepherds" (Book III).

The Caste System and the Absence of Social Mobility

Largely based on birth and hierarchy, the caste system that Plato proposes for his social and political organization can be criticized because it allows for virtually no social mobility. While one of the tenets of American government is the right to "the pursuit of happiness," Plato argues that even happiness is not sufficient justification for social mobility — not even downward mobility. In fact, Plato's social and political organization does not allow for the pursuit of anything. Instead, the society he has contrived simply exists. People are born and placed into classes based on their natural ability. They are never allowed to try anything new, nor are they able to pursue wealth, love, or happiness. Their sole duty is to perform the tasks that nature has endowed them with.

Plato argues that the intent of the social and political order is to provide happiness for everyone, not just for some (Plato Book IV). But in reality, few would be genuinely happy under such an arrangement. Although peace and proficiency may be achieved in this society, happiness, desire, and emotion — those qualities that make us truly human — cannot be found within it. Plato seems to abhor precisely the traits that define the human experience, and his social order is constructed to suppress them.

Thus, in The Republic, Plato proposes a political and social arrangement that privileges what he considers most important — logic. If this were a community of rational agents who cared only about logic, it might succeed. But Plato intends his society for human beings, and in such a society, humans would be rendered vastly inhuman. Robbed of their happiness, desires, and motivation to pursue self-improvement, they would have little drive to function. Rather than imposing a rigid caste system, the designer of any society must recognize that it is within the basic makeup of human beings to progress, change, and strive. Plato's Republic, therefore, provides a deeply inappropriate social and political arrangement for humanity.

Conclusion: Plato's Justice as Injustice

It is clear that Plato's recommendations for individuals in his society are as extreme as his structuring of that society itself. While this arrangement may constitute a form of justice if justice is defined narrowly as keeping citizens safe and preserving the best qualities of the population, it relieves humanity of their art and their humanness. In both his political and social structure and his prescriptions for individuals within it, Plato commits an injustice — bringing readers back to the very question posed at the opening of The Republic: What is justice? What is the benefit of justice?

The answer Plato provides, for all its philosophical sophistication, ultimately fails on its own terms. A just society cannot be one that denies its members the freedom to pursue happiness, to form genuine relationships, to fail and grow, or to question those in power. True justice must account for the full range of human experience — not merely the rational and the functional, but also the emotional, the aspirational, and the deeply personal. By these standards, Plato's Republic is not a model of justice but a blueprint for a sophisticated and philosophically rationalized form of oppression.

Works Cited

Brown, Eric. "Plato's Ethics and Politics in The Republic." 1 April 2003. 19 May 2009. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics/#2>

Plato. "The Republic." Trans. Benjamin Jowett. The Internet Classics Archive. 2009. MIT. 19 May 2009. <http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html>