1. In Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus presents several arguments in favor of the position that Might makes right. Explain three of his arguments. Do they explain how things are in the real world, how they ought to be or both? Explain. Regardless of which option you choose, which of the three options would represent the strongest ethical position?
Thrasymachus believes that justice does not really exist at all, except in the minds of naïve idealists like Socrates, and that only power matters. In other words, he is a classical realist and cynical supporter of power politics, which may not make him a moral or ethical man, but certainly one whose views have been common throughout history. He states that justice and law are simply what those with political, military and economic power assert them to be. In a dictatorship, justice is defined by the will of the tyrant; in an aristocracy by the ruling elite; and in a democracy by the masses. Any abstract or universal theory of justice was actual foolishness and weakness, since all people act only in their self-interest. Socrates counters that if the ruling faction or party were to make an error and actually pass laws that are not in its self-interest, then the in the world of Thrasymachus the governed would have to obey them but also disobey them at the same time, in order to behave in ways that truly were in the interests of their rulers. This ties Thrasymachus up in a logical trap which he does not understand well and cannot escape.
Plato-Socrates then continues that a truly just ruler is one who has learned the skills of governing. Their training must always emphasize that they are the shepherds of society, and that their main task in life is not to be concerned with personal advantages and narrow self-interest, but with the good of the whole. Thrasymachus counters that all persons are better off acting unjustly, and is not fully aware that he has just acceded to the definition of justice offered by Socrates. He does not believe that shepherds and their masters care anything about the flock except for what they can extract from it to their own advantage. An unjust person is better off because they care only about their own power and advantages, while a just person follows the Golden Rule that is concerned with others and prefers to suffer injustice rather than commit it. Ordinary criminals who are caught fear punishment, but rulers who commit injustice on a large scale are praised, so “it is not the fear of doming injustice but of suffering it, that elicit the reproaches of those who relive injustice” (Republic 85). Socrates has now driven his opponent to assert that injustice is preferable to justice us, as long as someone benefits from it personally.
Of course Socrates has the stronger moral argument that the just ruler will care about the good of the entire society, just as the physician is concerned with the entire body or the ship’s captain with the welfare of the crew and the vessel. Thrasymachus is correct that many persons in power do seem mainly concerned with their own advantage, and the news headlines confirm this every day. It is difficult to ascribe an ethical position to any of his arguments since the moral position would be that ‘right makes might’, as Abraham Lincoln once phrased it. A purely self-interested ruler might even betray his country and people to the enemy if he could gain some personal advantage from it. About the only way to make any kind of ethical argument for the type of rulers Thrasymachus describes would be that their own self-interest and survival might force them to at least pretend to show some concern about others. For example, the purely selfish captain of a ship would realize that if it sinks he might die with everyone else and be unable to save himself, so it is to his advantage to prevent the ship from sinking or foundering on the rocks somewhere. He may have no more concept of justice or morality than an ant, but even if he is minimally intelligent he will realize that his own survival depends to a great extent on the welfare of the ship and crew. This analogy could be applied to many situations, so that even the leader who cares nothing about justice would be forced to practice it out of self-interest. Those who do not would be able to learn from history that they might not survive in power permanently unless others sense they are also deriving at least some advantages from their rule. After all, if the citizens and crew are also purely self-interested, then they would not bother to serve anyone who failed to provide them with advantages too. Even the crew of a pirate ship or members of a criminal organization would certainly behave in exactly that way.
2. In" Classics of Moral and Political Theory" Plato's Republic (p. 78), Socrates, discussing a possible definition of justice, says that it is just to give each what is appropriate to him. Using this definition, analyze its applicability to the structure of and functions in Plato’s ideal state. Does this state reflect this theory of justice? Give three examples from the text to support your position.
In Plato’s ideal society, there are basically three types of classes of humanity: the Guardians or ruling elite; the soldiers and the masses, and each will have a very different type of education and function in civil life. He did not maintain that justice was some abstract universal principle that would be applied equally to all individuals, but that their treatment would vary according to their proper station in life. Only the Guardian rulers would be educated to be enlightened, rational and reflective, while the soldiers would be taught duty, honor, obedience and martial skills to defend the state, while the masses would have to learn to control and moderate their animal-like passions, lusts and desires. In Plato’s allegory of the cave, the prisoner is like a blind person living in a world of illusions and false consciousness. He imagined that the physical world he perceived with the senses was the real world—the only world—but for Plato this was completely untrue.
Only the philosopher can bring wisdom and enlightenment to the blind, foolish prisoner in the cave, although the masses or ordinary humans will never achieve this. Sense perceptions were not knowledge for Plato in the way that they always are for materialist philosophers. At best they provided only limited information about the physical universe but this has nothing to do with the ultimate reality, which is spiritual and non-material. On the other hand, the crude, ignorant, slave-like masses believe that they can perceive all of reality that exists with their senses. For Plato, appearances are definitely not real, but simply manifestations of the divine or the eternal. They are not perfect or eternal but temporary and transitory, while God and the soul last forever, so while he may not go so far as to deny their existence, they are only a starting point for the true philosopher, not an end in themselves.
Plato’s Guardians would not be paid high salaries or allowed to own any private property, which would discourage greedy and corrupt persons from joining their ranks, but they would be fed, housed and educated at the expense of the state. Their training would emphasize the public good and the needs or the larger society, not personal desires and self-interest. They would be instructed in the virtues of wisdom, honesty, impartiality and making decisions for the good of all. In this way, they would be the opposite of the selfish, cynical and power-hungry types that Thrasymachus describes. For Plato, only the ignorant masses of commoners and slaves have this type of mentality, not the rulers of the state. Each class would work together harmoniously for the good of all or would face the consequences, and this is how Plato describes a just society.
Thus type of state does not exactly reflect the Golden Rule of Socrates that it is better to suffer evil than to do it, which has often been proposed as a universal principle of higher morality. Plato’s class (or caste) system assumes that the majority of people would never be able to comprehend this type of abstract idea, much less practice it. In this, he agrees with the cynical and corrupt Thrasymachus that only the elite will truly be able to live according to some higher moral principle, while the majority will care only about their narrow material advantages and self-interest. Plato would never allow them to govern society or captain the ship, however, since he is convinced this would lead to disaster for all. All those unjust and amoral types that Thrasymachus asserts are the real rulers of the world are consigned to the role of onlookers in Plato’s Republic. Of course, even in the real world, history often shows that the Golden Rule is honored more in principle than in day-to-day life, and that those with power often are unjust and lacking in virtues or morality.
3. In The Republic, Plato establishes strict guidelines for the education of the Guardians, which supports his state’s class system. Explain, in detail, Plato’s educational requirements for the Guardians, his rules of censorship and how they contribute to justice in the state. Explain, using a contemporary example why censorship and totalitarianism appear to go hand-in-hand. (This may require some research.)
Plato’s system of education for the Guardians strongly discourages poetry, fiction and drama, especially ancient myths and legends that portray the gods and heroes in a bad light. He does not want to them to model their lives on Achilles, for example, who lacks self-discipline and control over his passions. Nor does his wish his ruling elite to become escapist or fantasy-prone and unable to face life in the real world. Their performance in school would also determine whether they were destined to become rulers, soldiers or simply part of the common herd.
Plato certainly does not intend for his Guardians to become crude materialists, either, given his belief that true knowledge is eternal, absolute and unchanging. Material objects in the physical world are pale imitations of the pure Forms, and are always corrupt, imperfect and transitory. Ultimate truth is spiritual and since only the elite philosophers could understand this they should also govern the state. Unlike the world of the physical senses and appearances, knowledge of the Forms of beauty, justice and the Good (God) are infallible and can never be false, while true knowledge can never be changed by mere opinions and persuasion. Learning about the Form of the Good is the highest level of knowledge since all the other Forms proceed from it, but most people will never attain such spiritual enlightenment. Humans are rational beings with immortal souls and were therefore created for a much higher and transcendent form of happiness. In his education system, Plato privileges the higher or rational part of the soul (nous), which is able to have communion with the divine, rather than the lower, animalistic lusts and instincts.
Plato’s system of government is certainly authoritarian, in which a moral and enlightened elite makes just decisions for everyone else in society. Indeed, they were most like the gods because the live according to reason, while those at the bottom resemble plants and animals in their lack of it. Only the educated elite will be able to achieve this high level of enlightenment, which is why Plato argued that they should be the rulers of The Republic. Instead, the highest form of love is that of wisdom and truth, which were eternal, and the love of the immortal soul in seeking after God. All citizens of a republic should be motivated by a higher type of morality than simply love of money, pleasure and the self.
There are many authoritarian and totalitarian states in the world today that practice censorship, including Russia, China, Iran and Syria. There is very little evidence that their rulers are enlightened philosophers and Guardians of the type Plato idealized, or that they are particularly concerned with justice and morality. Just the opposite, they do seem to be concerned mainly with their own wealth and power, while keeping the masses carefully indoctrinated and under control. Justice and morality have little to do with censorship in regimes like these, but rather preventing the media and the citizenry from criticizing their rulers or learning about true conditions inside the country. Open discussion and debate is very threatening to regimes like these, since it might end up in open rebellion. This is not simply theoretical, either, as the recent revolutions in the Middle East demonstrate. In these situations, the masses are continually making use of the Internet and other technologies to find ways around the censorship of the rulers, which is why all of these dictatorships are so determined to control these sources of ‘unofficial’ information anyway they can.
WORKS CITED
“Plato’s Republic” in Michael L. Morgan, Classics of Moral and Political Theory, 5th Edition. Hackett Publishing Company, 2011: 75-251.
