Plato's Republic vs. Thomas More's Utopia: Ideal Societies

Introduction

Plato's Republic is founded on justice and harmony as the hallmarks of its society and in the selection of its philosopher-rulers. This concept is reflected in all its practices surrounding government and leadership, military, citizenship, education, and religion. In contrast, Thomas More's Utopia revises the restrictiveness of the Republic by eliminating authority and rigid norms, drawing from the same — but ultimately flawed — assumption that human beings inherently recognize and possess goodness and will work toward it collectively. Utopians mistakenly believe that an unrestrained, pleasurable existence constitutes the good life.

The ideal society is a natural preoccupation, especially among philosophers. Plato saw society as inherently and unavoidably founded on justice for its social and political conception. In his major work, The Republic, he describes justice as harmony between internal and external realities. The balance within the soul of each person creates internal harmony, and that internal harmony is then projected outward to establish external harmony in the state (Book Notes 2004, 433e). Plato perceived this balance as proceeding from the virtuous, just, or good person — but such a person must already be assumed to live in a just society or state. In his view, external justice is impossible without pre-existing internal justice in each member of society. Social justice can develop only out of just individuals, who in turn will not be happy living in an unjust society (Book Notes, 433d–e).

It is with an awareness of the innately fallen nature of humanity, and through a mixture of Plato's principles from the Republic, Ovid's "Golden Age," and Christian doctrine, that Thomas More constructed his concept of Utopia (SparkNotes 2004). It resembles a laboratory experiment — a new recipe tested for taste — in which More takes what is preferred in one tradition and blends it with elements of another. The result is the dreamland called Utopia. These two ideal societies are compared here according to their respective principles on government and leadership, military, citizenship, education, and religion.

Government and Leadership

Plato argues that human beings cannot function separately or individually in acquiring or performing the common tasks they need. They therefore form communities for the achievement of common objectives, with each person specializing in a particular craft or set of goods to offer (Kemerling 2001). The formation and separation of different functions and specializations are, in his view, the essential elements of a worthwhile and lasting society. He envisions a society consisting of distinct classes — farmers, builders, teachers, and others — organized according to their contribution to the common good, which is the overarching goal of the community.

Since Plato believes that only the wisdom of good rulers provides the key to the success of the city-state, those rulers must first be philosophers. Only children who demonstrate a philosophical temperament will eventually develop the competence to rule, as they are the ones capable of distinguishing fact from illusion and abstractions from concrete reality. Plato's philosophy singles out those philosophers who detach themselves from the senses and immerse themselves in mental activity, as opposed to mere idle dreamers. He is aware of the prevalent public disfavor toward philosophers, but insists that the ideal society depends on their wisdom to establish and maintain order. Moreover, such philosophers are born, not made. Plato's schools were therefore tasked only with identifying and training those promising children who would become the philosopher-kings of the future (Kemerling 2001).

More's Utopia, on the other hand, is based on rational thought, communal property, optimum productivity, no class distinctions, no greed for wealth or money, no poverty, and a minimum of crime and immorality (SparkNotes 2010). Utopia is neither a dictatorship nor a democracy. There is no constituted unit of authority, except for a Prince whose prerogatives are not absolute. Utopia is frankly a commonwealth — but a commonwealth of nameless and faceless masses. There is no cult of personality or individuality. While everybody enjoys the fruits of a sustaining society, everybody also surrenders his or her individual identity.

Conclusion

Both Plato and Thomas More, in their respective works, aim at the perfect or ideal society, but from different perspectives across the five sub-themes examined. Plato builds his society on justice and harmony in a way that balances the internal and external conditions of a person. He assumes that true justice already exists in every person and that every person desires it. His Republic is headed by philosopher-kings, reared and trained from childhood. He believes that a just society can exist only according to principles of justice already enshrined in the heart of its philosopher-king leaders.

Thomas More, on the other hand, builds his perfect society on rational thought, communal property, optimum productivity, and the abolition of individuality and fixed authority. He believes in the primacy of the good, which he equates with the pleasant life and benevolence itself. There are no classes of people in Utopia. Its citizens feel no greed for wealth. There is no poverty and only a minimum of crime and immorality. The people sacrifice all external forms of order for a life of unbounded pleasure and license.

In The Republic, guardians are carefully selected and adequately prepared from childhood. From the three ranks come the soldiers — the military arm of the state. In contrast, there is no fixed authority in Utopia. It operates by public censure and collective punishment. Slavery and being treated as an animal are extreme punishments for offenders, imposed by society as a whole.

Citizenship in The Republic falls into distinct classes according to what individuals contribute to overall welfare. Children are raised and trained stringently to become upright citizens and deserving future guardians. The emphasis is political. Thomas More adopts Plato's strict methods of guiding children for the future of Utopian society, though his thrust tends more toward social structures and social reform.

Education is a very serious undertaking in The Republic. It trains potential guardians according to a strict curriculum that balances physical, mental, and aesthetic development, transferring that training from parents to the state. In Utopia, by contrast, violations of social norms are punished by censure, and parents suffer a bad reputation for failing to tame their children's sensual appetites.

The Republic serves the Good as the ultimate goal of education rather than worship of a personal God and Savior; yet it sets acquaintanceship with the Form of the Good as a standard and representation of a personal God. Utopia claims to draw its concept from one God but chooses a pleasurable life at the expense of the social institutions that keep excess in check. Critics view Utopian society as opposing long-held social beliefs and institutions.

Ultimately, both concepts of a perfect or ideal society assume that pure goodness already exists within humanity and that all people pursue it. Plato's Republic remains at the mercy of those personalities who raise and train future leaders, no matter how strict the regimen. And More's Utopia comes no closer to the ideal by failing to impose reason and law as constraining forces on human behavior.