Justice is something which underlies our own society – without it, indeed, some people posit that there can be no such thing as society. While many people state that justice is the same thing as the law, with Plato being the most visible proponent of this theory, others, such as Socrates, hold the two to be very different things. As we shall see below, while Socrates and Plato disagree on whether or not justice and law are the same, they both agree when it comes to addressing the role that justice takes in internal adherence to the values of the state. These two philosophers also made a distinction between internal and external justice, though again, they differed in its application. Interestingly, Machiavelli – at least on the surface – agrees with Socrates on subjects of justice. Their outlooks only diverge when you look below the surface, as we shall see throughout this paper. The view of justice espoused by Socrates - something which can be both an outside and inside influence, and which can either deviate from or dovetail to the law, is something which is echoed in the work of Kant, and completely repudiated in the works of Hobbes. Hobbes, perhaps as a direct result of his experiences in various wars, defined himself by a deeply-held belief that justice – or the belief in it – was all that kept humanity from anarchy and ultimate destruction. The view of justice, which Socrates subscribed to, the one which will be examined in this paper, is one which is much more optimistic, believing in the inherent goodness of humanity while at the same time maintaining a respect for the laws of society.
Plato’s characterisation of his mentor Socrates in the Crito differs rather dramatically from his characterisation in the Apology. In the latter case, Socrates is standing up for himself in front of the court, and can be seen as rather abrasive and rude towards the very people who hold his life in their hands. In the former, however, he is resigned to his fate, and debates the merits of his friends’ plan to smuggle him out of prison with equanimity. A cursory read of both works might suggest that this is a simple lack of cohesive characterisation, but a more in-depth analysis suggests that, in fact, the differing attitudes displayed by Socrates are in fact manifestations of his views on justice.
Then in the light of this admission we must consider whether or not it is right for me to try to get away without being released by the Athenians. If it turns out to be just, we must make the attempt; if not, we must drop it.
Note that Socrates continues to protest against his treatment up until the very moment he is sentenced; after that, as seen in the Crito, he accepts that it is the will of Athens and of the Athenian people as a whole that he be executed for his crimes, even against his imploring friends who try to convince him to escape. This change is attributable to Socrates’ own flexibility when it comes to justice: he seems to believe that personal justice, while it has every right (and possibly every obligation) to defend itself as far as possible against prosecution, it also has the responsibility and obligation to comply with the same laws it came under fire from before.
Socrates makes a point of reminding his friends that his actions, if taken in defiance of the law, will affect those around them to their detriment, thus standing in complete opposition to the beliefs expounded by Machiavelli (and indeed, Hobbes) to the effect that humans need to be kept in line by strict laws, because otherwise there will be nothing to keep them in check. While some of these beliefs (particularly in the case of – again – Hobbes) may be explained by the differing temperaments and experiences of the philosophers involved, a lot of the differences between Classical and Renaissance scholars as a whole may be explained away by the differing political systems they operated under. While most Classical philosophers were against democracy, the ones who resided in Athens still lived under democracy, thereby having access to democratic principles. Machiavelli operated in a very different world, so his ideas surrounding the need to strictly control and legislate humanity may have sprung, not from an innate need to control and subdue the populace as some of his works would suggest, but from necessity. Socrates had the freedom to develop his ideas of justice being something which was separate from the law because he was only one man against many; Machiavelli had to operate under the assumption that one man was only the pinnacle of many, in a situation where the head of state was the sole governmental agent.
Kant is unusual in the modern philosophers being discussed here in that he is one of the few who subscribe, in however faint a way, to the views of Socrates as they pertained to justice. The major difference between the pair is that, while Socrates sees justice as an expression of free will which should and is willingly wielded by the individual (indeed, this was his whole raison d’être in his pursuit of common philosophy), Kant seems to believe that justice is something which can only be accessed if an individual is willing to put some effort into it.
There will always be a few independent thinkers, even among the self-appointed guardians of the multitude. Once such men have thrown off the yoke of nonage, they will spread about them the spirit of a reasonable appreciation of man’s value and of his duty to think for himself.
While Kant is more cynical than Socrates, it seems a more learned response than the ingrained cynicism of Machiavelli and Nietzsche. Kant does seem to believe, as Socrates does, that justice is an ideal which can be wielded independently of the law as a whole, while still remaining in accordance with it. The main difference in their arguments seems to lie in the differing beliefs of humanity’s readiness to take such free will by the horns; but again, such a difference of opinion could easily be attributed to the differences in their respective political systems – where the people around Kant could take an easy approach and not directly involve themselves in the politics and law-making of their societies, the Athenians were directly involved in a very meaningful way – it was their discussions and decisions which created the state by its very nature. Such a state of affairs was naturally conducive to a feeling of justice as something which was distinct from the rule of law.
As mentioned, Socrates and Plato differ on many aspects of their approach to justice, just as they agreed on others. It is therefore strange to see that, out of all the philosophers who directly or indirectly referenced justice and law and their ideas thereon, only Nietzsche directly mentioned either of them. Further, it is interesting (and possibly a nod to the differences between the two philosophers) that he only refers to Plato, and not Socrates.
Given this origin, the word “good” is in no way necessarily tied up with “unegoistic” actions, as it is in the superstition of those genealogists of morals. Instead that occurs for the first time with the decline of aristocratic value judgements.
Clearly Nietzsche does not share Socrates’ optimism, nor his belief in the inherent goodness of humanity! The contrast here is clear: where Socrates thinks (and shows, through his actions to the same effect) that humans should and will act with a feeling of justice which will occur in accordance with the laws which already govern that particular situation, Nietzsche thinks that humans will not act this way of their own accord. He clearly believes that humans need to be corralled in the direction that the law (and the makers of the law) wish them to go, because they will not make the jump to being just on their own. This paper has already reference the differing political systems which Classical and Renaissance scholars operated under, and which most likely affected their outlooks when it came to such debates as the one being referenced here, but that difference can only account for so much.
Nietzsche’s ideas surrounding justice and law suggest that he sees justice as a purely exterior force; something which is imposed upon the people who live under a specific jurisdiction. Socrates, on the other hand, while he shows by his own actions that justice can be compelled to act in accordance with the law, clearly sees it as an interior force; his actions (or, to be more accurate, lack of actions) in Plato’s contemporary discourses as a whole clearly show that he believes that justice to be something which exists independently from the law. While it is true that Socrates did use his platform in the Apology to rail against and defy the laws as a whole, the Crito had him act in accordance with them even against the wishes of his friends (and perhaps his own desires). While justice is clearly something which operates independently from the laws, functioning as an extension of our own free will, Socrates makes it clear that is does have to act within the confines which are delineated by those same laws, or else the laws are meaningless.
It is interesting to note that Socrates and Plato differ in their views on justice and how it is perceived by people, considering that Plato wrote both his own works and the words of Socrates. Yes, Plato was most likely influenced by the people surrounding Socrates at that time, but the distinct voices of the two, as well as the fact that they do have different viewpoints which suit their own approaches and optimism when faced with human society, speaks well of Plato’s reasoning abilities. Socrates’ views on justice showed that he was nearly unique in the discussed philosophers and scholars in that he was optimistic about humanity and their approach to life and to each other: his views of justice suggest that, to him, justice was something which was controlled from within each person. While it could be controlled and fettered by outside influences – as shown by Socrates himself when he quietly acquiesced to the rule of the Athenian courts in the Crito – it functioned as an extension of a person’s free will, giving them the will to do what they thought was correct. Most philosophers in this paper, most notably Machiavelli, cited this free will as a reason for justice to be something to be controlled and imposed externally, rather than internally, because of the free will aspect allowing for the possibility of a person’s own personal sense of justice leading them to do things which were considered ‘wrong’ by any externally imposed system of law. The insistence of Socrates, that internal justice would lead to people doing the right thing as a natural consequence of their own ability to reason has led to the idea of justice being something which is naturally separate from the law, while still being bound by it.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. What is Enlightenment? Translated by Mary Smith. Colombia.edu, n.d. Web. 4 August, 2016.
Macchiavelli, Nicolo. “Preservation and Governance of the State” Discourses. Constitution Society, n.d. Web. 4 August 2016.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Good and Evil, Good and Bad” The Genealogy of Morals, translated by Ian Johnston, 2014. Web. 4 August, 2016.
---. “What do Ascetic Ideals Mean?” The Genealogy of Morals, translated by Ian Johnston, 2014. Web. 4 August, 2016.
Plato. The Republic of Plato. Translated by Francis Cornford, Oxford University Press, London, 1969.
Socrates. “Apology” The Last Days of Socrates, translated by Harold Tarrant, Penguin Classics, 2003, pp. 31-70.
---. “Crito” The Last Days of Socrates, translated by Harold Tarrant, Penguin Classics, 2003, pp. 71-96.
