Page 13 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Unit 1: Plato’s Life, His Ideal State and Theory of Justice

longer remain rulers. He asserted that an unjust life was stronger and better than a just one. Notes
Thrasymachus conceded that justice ought not to be in the interest of the stronger, but that was the
normal practice and there were plenty of examples to substantiate it.
Through a series of analogies, Socrates showed that justice was not the advantage of the stronger,
for the ruler’s duty was to serve the interests of the people. A ruler’s position was similar to that
of a doctor, teacher or shepherd. Any art, which included ruling, should be for the welfare of the
object, and not the subject.
By defining justice as the interest of the stronger, Thrasymachus earned a place in the history of
political theory. The fact that Socrates was unable to refute the argument was perhaps an
acknowledgement of the fact that it was the strongest who set the standards in society.
Glaucon and Adeimantus were still unconvinced with the arguments furnished by Socrates on the
causes of injustice. They argued that individuals were not willingly just, but only out of necessity,
in which case injustice was better than justice. Glaucon pointed out that all customary rules
relating to religion and morality were imposed on individuals by social sanction, which originated
in human intelligence and will. They were based on a tacit consent of the parties. These were
conventions which could be altered, changed or repealed by legislative bodies. A law emerged
whereby the strong and the weak contract with each other; the strong agreed not to inflict wrong,
and the weak accepted not to suffer injustice.
Adeimantus, extending Glaucon’s argument, pointed out that existing religious values and
education taught the young that injustice was good because of the rewards it brought, thus
convincing them that the ideal would be injustice clothed in good reputation. Thus, while
“Thrasymachus concentrated on the role of power in defining values, Glaucon was concerned to
emphasize the importance of law in any consideration of justice”.

Both Glaucon and Adeimantus challenged Socrates to show that justice was intrinsically
good and reflected an inward quality of the soul, rather than the rewards and good
reputation it brought.

At this point Socrates became more constructive, and replied with the help of examples. Using the
method of large letters, he said that anything written in big and bold, in contrast to something
written in a small size, would receive more attention. Similarly, in order to understand the meaning
of justice, one could see its application at the level of the state and then in the individual. Both
Glaucon and Adeimantus agreed with this suggestion.
Justice in the State and Individual

Socrates examined the origin of states and cities, and pointed out that they arose out of two
reasons. The first was mutual need, and the second, the differences in aptitudes of individuals.
Mutual need led to reciprocal services, since the individual was not self-sufficient and depended
on others for subsistence. Exchange of services necessitated division of labour and functional
specialization, which was possible since individuals differed in their nature and aptitudes.
Individuals could be trained to specialize and perform one particular task. Specialization was
encouraged to bring about excellence and perfection. It was not to assign any kind of superiority
or snobbery to one particular function. It was essentially to recognize and bring to fruition the
uniqueness in every individual. Acceptance and organization of diverse human aptitudes would
result in social benefit, cooperation and harmony.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 7