Concepts are often controversial to define. This has been evident in Western philosophy since its inception, as Socrates, its founder, had a method of asking about people’s theories in order to demonstrate that they were illogical or flawed in some way. One can find an example of this, among many, in Plato’s Republic, where Socrates puts into discussion the word justice. After presenting his own account, he contradicts that of Thrasymachus, who believes that justice is related to the interest of those who are in power. An analysis of this proves that it is important to be moral because it helps both the individual and the society.
Plato develops his theory of justice in his Republic, a grand dialogue that has been one of the most important texts in Western philosophy. He defines justice as a virtue where “a city-state performs its function well solely because its parts perform their proper function, and do so without interfering with the functions of the other parts” (Robinson 192). He finds this state to be ideal, where the government looks after the citizen’s requirements, like defense. It understands people and their institutions as having an inherent nature that is important to exploit. If an entity does not allow someone or some institution to develop him, her or itself to him, her or its potential, it will subsequently be unjust and against virtue.
As predictable, not everybody in the dialogue agrees with this theory, especially Thrasymachus. They present different definitions, which Socrates continually critiques. “Thrasymachus, then proposes the theory that justice is whatever is to the interest of the stronger party. His idea is that justice is relative to the law, and the law is made by the stronger party according to his interests” (Rickards). For Thrasymachus, justice only serves the powerful, disregarding the lower, less powerful classes, who would not enter the discussion of the justice concept. One can see something similar to this when celebrities and wealthy people commit a crime, yet are not duly punished as others would be. Thrasymachus excludes those that are not powerful from the discussion of justice, believe that this is something established by the powerful.
Obviously, these two theories come into conflict with each other. The greatest difference is that Plato’s focuses on the society as a whole, while Thrasymachus’ only takes into account those who are powerful. Likewise, this latter philosopher focuses on the individuals, who then extrapolate their morals to society, while Plato believes that the society is more important, and depending on what it demands, the individuals take their place. However, it is important to note that, for Plato, individuals also have their proper place, which must come into tune with the city-state, while Thrasymachus focuses on the powerful, who may be so by nature or by accident. Finally, Thrasymachus’ theory does not lead the common people to have a sense of duty with respect to the law because it is only an expression of the interest of the most powerful. On the other hand, Plato leads people of all kinds to try to do what is right, so as to have the whole city-state functioning.
However, there is still the problem of convincing the population that they ought to behave in a moral manner. There are many reasons as to why one should behave in an ethical way, yet some people may not be aware of them. From this argument, one can find two important reasons as to why behave in an ethical manner: it allows the city-state to function properly and it helps the person be in tune with their nature.
It is important for an individual to behave morally because this is the only way for the society to function properly. Many philosophers, including Hegel, described the importance of the relationship between the individual and the society in terms of morals and justice. “The state is not a medium for the realization of individual ends, so much as the individual is an expression, or a particular determination, of his community” (Ware 298). The individual and his or her society are linked in such a way that it is almost impossible to dissociate them.
This means that it is also important for the individual to behave properly, so as to help himself. First, he would be aiding the society, which he forms a part of, benefiting himself indirectly. Nevertheless, this would also mean that it would help him find himself. Acting morally is the only way for a human to be in tune to who he really is. If he does not act according to ethics, he strays away from his nature, affecting everything around him as well, which in turn affects him. Therefore, it is also important for the individual to behave morally so as to enhance his way of life as well.
In conclusion, Plato presents a more coherent point of view of justice, in which the person and the city-state are intertwined, leading the person to behave morally to fulfill their nature. Even though Thrasymachus presents another point of view with respect to justice, with the most powerful instating the law with their interest, Socrates regards this as being illogical. There are, in fact, many differences with respect to these theories. However, it is always important to be moral because it helps both the individual and the city-state as a whole. It is a win-win situation.
Reference List
Rickards, B. (2015). Republic by Plato. Salem Press Encyclopedia Of Literature.
Robinson, J. (2014). Plato and the Virtues of Military Units. Journal Of Military Ethics, 13(2), 190-202. doi:10.1080/15027570.2014.944359
Ware, R. B. (2000). Freedom as Justice: Hegel's Interpretation of Plato's Republic. Metaphilosophy, 31(3), 287.
