>>>>The pursuit of justice in Plato's dialogue
"The Republic" begins in conversation with
an elderly man who says that justice is doing
no harm. It continues with the challenge of
Thrasymachus, who says that in fact justice
doesn't exist, that morality doesn't exist.
And this is a serious position, and to appreciate
the accomplishment of Plato you have to take
seriously the idea that morality simply doesn't
exist. That it has no basis in god, in nature,
in tradition. Now the conversation becomes
even richer and the next scene is, I think,
one of the finest contributions of Plato to
all of political philosophy. The conversation
continues when Thrasymachus leaves the conversation
and another interlocutor enters: Glaucon.
Glaucon will become the primary conversation
partner was Socrates throughout the rest of
the dialogue. When Glaucon enters the conversation,
he picks up where Thrasymachus leaves off.
Glaucon has a conversation with Socrates about
what is morality? What is the good? And they
quickly begin to ask, how can we define what
the good is? And Glaucon offers the idea that
some things are good in and of themselves,
and some things are good because of their
consequences. And it's a fundamental distinction
and it's important, and Plato articulates
it here in a way that it had never been expressed--
and its a profound distinction. There are
things that are good in and of themselves,
regardless of their consequences. And there
are things that are good because of their
results, because of what consequences they
entail. And Glaucon asked Socrates what is
the nature of the true good? Is it truly what's
good in itself, or is it truly what results
in some other outcome, whether it's pleasure
or happiness or success? And to understand
the rest of "The Republic", in fact to understand
the entire political philosophy of Plato,
you need to understand that distinction between
something that's good in and of itself and
something that's good because it entails good
consequences. Because Glaucon will pick up
where Thrasymachus leaves off, in the idea
that there isn't morality, there's simply
interest. To say that justice is a good because
it has good consequences, and the entire rest
of "The Republic" is Socrates response, in
which he'll try to defend a position in which
justice, in which all of morality, is somehow
that which is good in and of itself - independent
of its consequences. Glaucon says: "Let's
think about what we mean by justice. Justice
is obeying the law, and the laws are created
out of a combination of self-interests in
competition." He says: "People can either
do no harm or they can harm each other." And
he says that harm, in fact, has seriously
negative consequences. And so, individuals
create laws to keep each other from harming
one another. This is a profound idea. Plato
in the mouth of Glaucon, somebody whose ideas
he doesn't agree with here, gives very early
expression to what we might call a contract
view of society. Glaucon says: "Why do we
have laws? Why do we have a state? Why do
we have the social order that we have? We
have it because individuals wanted to call
a truce. They signed a contract. They make
a compact in which they agree not to hurt
each other." He says that in a sense, society
is this sort of mutual agreement of not doing
harm to one another. Therefore, he says, justice
isn't something that's good in and of itself.
Justice is obeying the laws that come out
of this compact. Justice is good because of
its consequences. Justice is good because
it prevents us from harming one another. And
he gives a parable that expresses the meaning
of this idea, the parable that's called the
Ring of Gyges. He says: "Imagine this scenario
there was once a shepherd of a king named
Gyges, and one day he was off in the wilderness
tending the king's flocks when there was an
earthquake and it opened up a chasm in the
ground. And he went inside and there was a
giant bronze horse, and inside of it there
was a corpse. And he took nothing from this
grave except a ring which was on the finger
of the corpse. And later he was standing around
in the bureaucratic meeting where the king's
shepherd talked about their, their sheep and
he was bored and started playing with the
ring and he turned it. And when he turned
it, turned the bevel towards the inside, he
became invisible. Now this invisibility gave
him enormous power, because now he could do
whatever he wanted without anyone knowing
that it was him. In other words he could behave
however he wanted and there were no consequences.
There was no damage to his reputation and
there was no risk that he would be imprisoned
for doing anything wrong. Well, what would
you do if you had this kind of power? The
Gyges, this former shepherd, quickly used
it to amass riches, to kill his enemies, eventually
uses it to seduce the queen, kills the king
and takes over the kingdom. He uses this power
to pursue his own interests. And Glaucon is
saying that this is what society would be
like if we didn't have consequences, if the
laws didn't establish punishments. And justice
is simply obeying the laws that we've created
because you want to avoid the punishments.
You want to avoid the consequences. And the
parable illustrates this by saying what would
happen to any of us if there were no consequences
to our actions? Nobody behaves justly in and
of itself. They do so to avoid the consequences
of disobeying the law. And that's why we've
created society, that's why we've created
law, that is the very nature of political
order.
