The Republic: Book I

Plato discusses the notion of ‘justice’ and its worthiness through Socrates in Book I of The Republic that opens with a festive scene where the Greeks celebrate in honour of the Goddess Bendis that is to be followed by an equestrian torch-race in the evening. The whole work (The Republic) is narrated by Socrates after the day of the festival to a small party comprising Critias, Timaeus and Hermocrates.

The previous day Socrates had involved in a discussion on the definition of ‘justice’ which was articulated by one of his aged companions, Cephalus as ‘speaking the truth and paying one’s debts’. But this was counteracted by Socrates who presented them with a problematic situation and enquired if a weapon should be returned to a mad person because it rightfully belonged to him despite being conscious of its dangers at the wrong hands? If giving a person his rightful “due” is considered ‘justice’ then it can be surmised that friends deserve “good” while we owe “evil” to our enemies. But Plato reasons through Socrates that men mostly err in judging “evil” from “good” which often results in harming friends and helping enemies. It, thus, brings out the incoherence of the former statement about ‘justice’.

Thrasymachus, the Sophist rushes into the conversation to savagely contradict Socrates’ reasoning faculty and claims ‘justice’ to be nothing more than the interest of the stronger where the rulers are actuated by the love of offices. Does it pay to be just then? Socrates refuses to delegitimize justice by claiming men’s fallibility in taking the right decisions that often harms their self-interest. Therefore, the government of a nation (tyrannical, autocratic or democratic) cannot incessantly work for its own good without considering the felicity of its subjects just as a shepherd’s sole concern is for the well-being of its flock of sheep “since the perfection of art is actually ensured whenever all the requirements of it are satisfied”.

Is injustice then more “gainful” than ‘justice’ and does it have more “strength”? While Thrasymachus classifies ‘justice’ with “sublime simplicity” (for the honest man does not try to gain advantage over the just) and ‘injustice’ with “discretion” (for the unjust man’s undetected astute moves are advantageous and profitable for him), Socrates once again employs the analogy of art to annul this statement. A skilled doctor or a musician does not try to gain more than a skilled man of the same profession. He rather aims at outshining the unskilled man for he considers that a “just” action. But the unskilled man makes random efforts at excess. Thus, the skilled falls on the virtuous side (as “knowing is wise” and “wise is good”) and the unskilled on the side of the evil because it is contrary to wisdom which is considered as a virtue. Also Socrates proves wrong “that injustice had strength” by citing the example of a band of bandits where every member has to have some remnant of ‘justice’ in them for harmonious co-existence (as injustice creates division within the self and with others). Therefore, absolute injustice cannot account for absolute strength.

Every art has an end and a virtue or “excellence” to attain the end and the proper end of the soul is “life” that is attained through “justice”. Book I of The Republic does not end with an exact definition of ‘justice’ but moves away from the conventional definition of it thereby proving it to be virtuous and desirable.