A throwaway statement by Cephalus, a rich Athenian, resulted in a long debate on Justice. That debate was recorded in a book titled “The Republic” written by Plato. Cephalus said the benefit of his wealth was the ability to do the right thing and pay one’s debt, one less thing to worry about as he approached the grave.
It is not always right and just to pay one’s debt, Socrates opined and provided an example of returning a weapon you borrowed to a man whom you know would use it to harm others. Polemarchus agreed and tried to redefine justice as benefiting one’s friend and harming one’s enemies. If your friend is evil, is it just to benefit him? Socrates queried. Polemarchus agreed that this will not be right and redefined justice as benefiting one’s friend if he is good and harming one’s enemy if he is evil.
Socrates found issues with this new definition. Our judgment about people is not always right and he argued also that it is never just to harm others. At this point, Thrasymachus came in with a rather controversial opinion: justice is what is in the interest of the stronger party. He pointed to how government made laws that are in its own interest, rather than what is in the interest of the subjects.
Arguing against this, view, Socrates used professionals such as medical doctors and sailors to show that stronger parties do their job because of their interest in the subject matter, rather than just to benefit themselves.
Thrasymachus disagreed, arguing that a shepherd does not look after his flock because of the welfare of the sheep, rather, there are other benefits that motivates them to discharge their duties. Furthermore, the just man who care about justice and tries to do the right thing always comes off worse than the unjust man in any business deal between the two. Socrates disagreed arguing that rulers do not rule because they wanted to benefit themselves, rather, they do so to avoid being governed by unjust men. Assuming that to be unjust requires one to work just towards only one’s own interest, Socrates said injustice is a source of weakness because two people collaborating together have to be fair to one another and will be stronger than somebody just pursuing his selfish interest.
The argument carried on between Glaucon, Adeimantus and Socrates. Glaucon argued that justice is a matter of convenience; the appearance of being just is more beneficial than being just. As humans always pursued their own interest, justice and morality arose in human societies to keep some order. Were we to remove sanctions, the just and unjust man would behave in identical manner. Adeimantus concurred, saying that people pursue justice just for the benefits: it pays better or because they want to avoid sanctions in the afterlife. Glaucon an Adeimantus challenged Socrates to show that justice is worth pursuing on its own rather than for the benefits and sanctions that go with it.
This is a brief summary of Part 1 of Plato’s Republic and just a tip of the iceberg of this discussion. Just as it was then, matters of justice and doing right remains a matter of controversy. No wonder we have a branch of philosophy called Situation Ethics, which suggests that what is moral depends on the circumstances. The UK government is currently embroiled in some controversies on actions of some within it during the lockdown. As it defends itself, it tries to use the “exceptional circumstances” of the period: this is a defense rooted in situational ethics.
By the way, I have only covered the first out of eleven parts of Plato’s Republic. Do we really need one of the greatest philosophers in Western tradition to grapple with doing the right thing? Aren’t there simpler approaches to working this out? For me, the Golden Rule is a more accessible approach
One day, the Pharisees came to Jesus and wanted to know which one is the greatest commandment. This was Jesus’s reply (Matthew 22: 37-40):
‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ his is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
When it comes to doing the right thing and justice, the Golden Rule is simpler. It is a matter of asking a simple question: how will I feel if I am on the receiving end of this? If we all weigh our actions in the light of how we would feel if it is us on the receiving end, we won’t need intense debate and discussions nor the thoughts of the large than life Plato on what it means to do the right thing.
oyebode.com 