Philosophy
In “The Republic of Plato”, Plato attempts to explore the true meaning of justice and how it can be realized in the society as a possible framework through which the unalterable claims of man’s nature can find happiness. Plato uses Socrates’ criticisms on a whole range of views of justice as either inadequate or false (Francis 1). Socrates opposes Thrasymachus’ views of justice as the key interest of strong men in the society. Thrasymachus believes and acknowledges that might is a form of right in an extreme form. He holds that it is the strong men in the society who determine what is just and unjust in the society. They inflict this sentence to their subjects who evidently have no word or say in the ultimate pronunciation. He explains that by penning the laws of the land, these leaders dictate what is right and wrong. These laws are essentially drafted to protect and uphold the individual interests of the elite (Francis 15). He argues that his concept is not a theory of social contract and that right and wrong do not have any other meaning whatsoever. This he explains with the fact that rulers cannot sacrifice their liberties in order to gain social benefits. Socrates is however against Thrasymachus’ formula and he explains that Thrasymachus does not acknowledge the existence and rule of morality and moral sense in his translation of the words superior and strong (Francis 17). Superiority and strength according to Socrates lies in the determination and skill of seizing power.
Thrasymachus found it outrageous that Plato defined justice as an element that is useful, obligatory, expedient and profitable. In their search for the true meaning of justice they needed precise responses that were clear and debatable. The human nature of ignorance is initially attacked in their discussions, Plato responded to Thrasymachus’ claim that Socrates was shaming ignorance and avoiding a clear meaning to justice (Francis 16).
Plato portrays the human nature as never willing to learn from others but always insistent on teaching instead. Also underlying in Plato’s arguments is the notion that humans are similarly ungrateful beings and fail to give in return of praise. Plato is more convinced that Thrasymachus’ theory is incorrect because humans are not infallible and often make mistakes (Francis 16). According to Thrasymachus’ theory however, Plato agrees that humans are often after pursuing their own self-interests and fail to consider the needs of those they are obligated to serve and respect.
In his definition of democracy, Plato explains that the law ensures the happiness and welfare of a whole society of common citizens. He explained that it is this welfare and wholeness that unites citizens in harmony and enables them to share the benefits from all the different classes. Democracy to Plato was the ability of a leader to be fair-minded and view the holding of power as an unavoidable necessity (Francis 239). A well governed society can only be achieved when future leaders discover there is a better way of life than being in office. True leadership is only realized when power is held by men who are rich in the wealth that brings happiness, wisdom and good and not rich in the wealth of gold (Francis 239). When democratic leaders are starved for what should be good in their lives they turn to the public affairs to snatch from them what their hearts really long for. This then creates an endless fight for power which eventually ruins the country from conflict. True democracy as explained by Plato is when leaders look down upon access to power and offices of the state and are not ready to fight just to maintain their superiority.
Democracy is such that maintenance of the societal unity is of great importance and drives the community, ruled by noble leaders who understand the principles of the government. Today, wars are fought in the name of democracy (Francis 240). In the ancient classical times, when democracy was born, slaves, women, children and foreigners were never allowed to vote. Today politicians are concerned with the rights of such groups prevented from exercising the civic duties and responsibilities as compared to the democratic scenes of the past (Carter 27). Democracy should work for the community and should steer away from a dominating ruling class out to comfort itself and embrace virtuous, intelligent and benevolent ruling classes.
Plato explains that the rulers and leaders of the society are far from just and are only interested in individual development. The society needs rulers who are selfless and noble and are capable of leading their subjects with respect, care and concern. Just leaders ensure that economic relations are intact and that there is proper distribution of labor (Francis 240). A democratic state consequently is one ruled by genuinely and just leaders.
In Aristotle’s “Politics”, he gives a description of the condition and roles of slaves in the society. He divided the society into the wealthy and the poor and concludes that the poor eventually serve the masters as slaves. He cautions that cities arise not of freemen, but of slaves and their masters, whereby one group despises and the other envies. This eventually creates a state that cannot develop meaningful solid relationships because of the spite and enmity between the two extremes (Swanson & Corbin 126). He proposes however that a city ought to have similar and equals, to be effectively balanced. This he explains can only be achieved when most of the citizens are of a middle class.
This kind of composition would neither be envious of the other nor would they covet others property. He exclaims that many things are usually their best in their mean forms. Moderation to Aristotle is indeed significant and concludes that the best political communities are usually formed by citizens of the middle class (Swanson & Corbin 191). He therefore tries to distinguish between freedom and slavery in his work. He explores the difference in opinion that not everyone is a slave by nature and masters by nature and that there are some instances of marked distinctions between the two. Cases where one group obeys and the other orders and exercises lordship and authority. When this authority is abused, both are affected since slaves and masters according to Aristotle are like the body and the soul, he explains that slaves are part of their masters and cannot be separated from them. In this concept, he agrees with Plato’s observation that human beings always yearn and long for power, to have the ability to exercise authority over the weaker people in the society (Swanson & Corbin 62). This is illustrated by the master and slave relationship portrayed by Aristotle. This rule of the master is however not constitutional and that there is a science of the slave and a science of the master, the duties of the slave are necessary and those of the master honorable.
It is therefore evident from ‘Politics’ that masters are more concerned with exploiting their slaves rather than benefiting honestly from their services. Human beings are generally ungrateful and fail to appreciate the good done to them. But they however have the ability to create the change they want according to Plato. Aristotle predisposes that most cases of slaves and masters are distinct and slaves have no other option but to faithfully serve the needs of their masters.
Works Cited
Carter, April. Direct Action and Democracy Today. Cambridge [u.a.: Polity, 2004. Print.
Francis, MacDonald. C. (Trans.) The Republic of Plato. New York: Oxford University Press.
1945. Print.
Swanson, Judith. A & Corbin, C. D.Aristotle's Politics: A Reader's Guide. London:
Continuum, 2009. Print.
