Plato’s Republic essay

Plato’s Republic essay

Introduction

Plato’s Republic is a masterpiece by Plato that tries to define justice and whether a just person is happier than the unjust person. To achieve this goal, Plato draws a parallel comparison between justice, human virtues, a just city, politics, and philosophy. In Plato’s Republic, justice is defined by individual virtue, the order of society, and individual rights. Throughout arguments, Socrates tries to show how having a good soul will automatically lead to a just city/society. The relationship between the city and a just soul is a way of defending Plato’s philosophy of ethics. Socrates argues that a just soul achieves happiness since justice fosters friendship and a sense of common purpose. Socrates begins by trying to defend justice from an ideal perspective, but as the plot progresses, it becomes evident that all he was trying to defend was human rationality and not justice as per se. In this paper, I argue that Plato’s Republic is a defense of Socrates and philosophy and an ineffective definition of justice.

The Republic is a true defense of Socrates and philosophy, and it brings out the greedy, selfish, and individualistic attributes of human nature. Socrates is defending the idea that a just society is made up of individuals who act per philosophical teachings of ethics, but this does not seem to be the case, especially when describing the “city of pigs.” This shows that being moral and good-hearted does not automatically transform into doing good to others. This is because justice is not just about personal rights but about consideration for others and the common good. This means that even a person with a just should still be involved in despicable acts against others because they are motivated by greed and individualism.

According to Plato, a just city is built by virtuous individuals. Individuals’ souls can be rational, spirited, or appetite oriented. Basically, men are motivated by a desire for truth/wisdom, honor, and money. Therefore an ideal and just city is defined by individual virtue, respect for human rights, and a society guided by order. An unjust city is ruled by individuals who do not believe in a rule of law or a skewed form of governance that does not advance the common good. Thus Plato believed that an ideal city that was just was achievable, but human deficiencies in ethics would be the stumbling block. According to Plato, an ideal city is built, but people, but people are driven by intrinsic motivations that make it difficult to achieve a just society.

Plato was pessimistic that a relationship would exist between philosophy and politics because politicians are not necessarily guided by the ideal principles of a just city. According to Plato, a just city cannot come to fruition until “philosophers rule as Kings and Kings become philosophers.” A philosopher must compromise their self-interests and use their knowledge to advance the city’s interests while a person who is a King must pursue wisdom in order to rule wisely. The perfect ruler should be morally guided, have the desire to advance the common good, and strive for enlightenment. However, there are always competing interests between individual successes and advancing public good. In political settings such as monarchies and aristocracies, the ruler can choose to advance the interests of the citizens or choose to advance their own interests. Plato credits a ruler who is wise but at the same time, illustrates that a leader may be too wise to use corruption tactics to stay in power or oppress the citizens.

Plato believed that a city way bigger than an individual. A good leader should be able to balance the advancement of their personal interests with public interests. However, this cannot be achieved if the philosopher cannot embrace learning how to lead like a king and a king pursuing knowledge to provide value for their people. The best leaders are supposed to be wise, advance the interests of the rules, and not their personal goals. There is a gap between the wise and the typical individuals in society who aspires to lead. A just city cultivates virtue, the rule of law, and wisdom in the Republic’s political space.

Plato argues that a “healthy city” should prioritize skill, specialization, production, and moderation, where the appetitive attitudes motivate each class. In a “healthy city,” an individual is supposed to develop a particular skill and work towards using it to get what they need. The belief is that if each citizen plays their role, everyone will have something in moderation.  A “healthy city” is divided into two main classes, the producing class, and the laborers. In this city, the two classes work together to produce the appropriate quality and quantity of goods that are aligned with the needs of society. Plato believes that if the balance is not maintained, then the city is most likely to lose its balance of social classes and grow into a “city of pigs” instead of as Glaucon puts it.

The so-called healthy city is not ideal for Glaucon because he is pessimistic that a city can achieve justice, taking into account human nature. Socrates argues that a just and successful city should have virtuous and successful human beings as well as rulers. On the other side of the coin, a “feverish city” is a luxurious city that would include guardians, producers, and then the ruling class. The guardians are used to protect the other two classes, while the ruling class would determine the redistribution of resources. Clearly, Glaucon approaches Socrates’s view of a perfect city and political landscaper with a pinch of salt because he is aware that human nature is far more complicated. To achieve success in the fevered city, leaders must ascribe to ethics and seek knowledge.

The guardian class is created to protect the interests of the producers and the ruling class. Honor spirits motivate guardians, and that is why they are courageous and value honor. In his critique of human nature and politics, Glaucon is aware of the dangers of a city driven by the individual pursuit of profit since a lack of moral values is a likely scenario. As a result, the city may be subject to wars, and philosophers may be caught up in a trap of political correctness leading to more social misery. The guardian class is seen to be extremely valuable in this type of society where individuals are motivated by material success. This creates a contradiction as far as the moral aspect is concerned since while guardians protect the city, they do not seem to enjoy the fruits of their labor in equal terms.

According to Plato, justice cannot exist without individual virtue and order in society. A luxurious city will require an army to guard the city, but it must be educated. The city will be composed of soldiers trained to guard the city with their lives, further throwing into sharp focus on the nature of human beings. They would rather live in excesses while someone else takes the bullet for them. It turns out that “Noble Lies,” as described by Socrates, is the belief that guardians are less inclined towards enjoying the excesses because they are trained to be motivated by honor and not material wealth. This in itself shows the unethical part of human beings where soldiers are not treated as part and parcel of the community, and their pay is downgraded because they are not motivated by money. In the “city of pigs’, while the citizens live in the utmost luxury, the guardians pay for that freedom with their lives. The city of pigs should regulate their personal interests, desires, and attitudes towards luxury for recognition and award of the guardian class. This is a form of justice that is denied by noble lies.

The myth of metals means that God framed people by mixing different metals with their souls. Gold was made for the rulers; silver was framed for auxiliaries while iron and brass were made for Craftsmen. The myth implies that children are made from the same metal as their parents, and if it, not the case, the children can ascend or descend the social order. A child made of brass cannot become a guardian. The author uses this myth to show that it is not true, and anyone can be a ruler. Concerning politics, this myth means that the rulers should rule forever while the other social group plays a submissive role. The myth suggests a monarchy form of government.

Plato finds out the living conditions of the guardians and concludes that they live a common life. They are not allowed to own properties, and their children are given the same treatment across the country. When they retire, they are trained to become king philosophers. He did this to enable the society to understand how the guardians are treated by the rulers and the injustice in the country. The discussion is important since it will help address the issues faced by the guardians. Guardians provide security to a country and thus, they should be treated with respect and honor and be allowed to own property so that when they retire, they can live a good life.

Plato said that justice the quality of the soul that men put aside their irrational desires of getting selfish satisfaction and put into consideration actions that benefit everyone. His concept of justice is motivated by his understanding that everything in nature is included in the hierarchy, and every individual in nature is serving a purpose. He believes that a just state is like nature, and individuals should be ranked according to their aptitudes. It is important because all people in a society should play their roles and ensure that their souls choose to do the right thing for justice to prevail. Nature is well framed to promote justice from the rulers to the craftsmen.

Plato has said that for one to become a philosopher-king, first, you have to become a guardian. After the age of retirement, the person is then trained with equipped skills to become a rule. The reason why their rule is valid is that they have adequate knowledge about the state. They have a lot of information that they collect that helps them to have power. As they guard the country, they come across many challenges, and by solving them, they understand what the state needs. From their experiences, they can write down a plan that will help the country to protect itself from external threatens and how they can counter the problems.

Plato says that the city is in doubt about the things he said. The city believes that most of what is said is right, though even if the implementation is done, the city will still doubt. This shows that the city is reluctant to change, and the people in power want to hit more on the people below society. His ideas conflict with those of the city, and most probably, the city wants to change, but the rulers will not allow. The doubt comes from the people since they do not trust the city. This is the reason why Plato insists that justice should be done

Conclusion

The Republic is a true defense of Socrates and philosophy, and it brings out the greedy, selfish, and individualistic attributes of human nature. Plato presents a valid defense of philosophy, but due to the traditional beliefs about human nature, he fails to prove that having a good moral stand translates to good deeds.  It is also clear that the link between individual virtues far outweighs human nature. This shows that being moral and good-hearted does not automatically transform into doing good to others. This is because justice is not just about personal rights but about consideration for others and the common good. This means that even a person with a just should still be involved in despicable acts against others because they are motivated by greed and individualism. In order to address this, society must seek knowledge, truth, and set a system that will allow justice to prevail. Plato is right that if everyone does what is right, then the society will attain justice. However, the intrinsic qualities that define human nature are still a threat to such an ideal society.