Why is Justice Always Desirable?
Tying up the Loose Ends in Plato’s Arguments in The Republic
Alex Thorn
10.10.04
Phil 115W-26
Idit Dobbs-Weinstein
It is a fact of life that humans seek emotional, spiritual, and physical prosperity. Essentially, human beings desire to achieve things, whether those things are physical, such as money, property and fame, or if those things are emotional or spiritual, such as self contentment and enlightenment. In order to achieve prosperity, each man and woman is given the choice to either be just or unjust. However, it is an undeniable fact that it is always better to achieve prosperity by just means than through injustice, for the former will cause greater elation than the latter. Why then, one might ask, would someone ever achieve prosperity through injustice if she had the knowledge that the other route was more lucrative? In taking the just path to prosperity, a man will achieve more satisfaction even if he fails than the man who took the unjust path to prosperity and succeeded. Thus, as Plato believed, it is always better to be just and suffer than to be unjust and prosper, no matter how difficult it is to be just.
In
Book IX of The Republic, Plato presents three arguments for the conclusion that
it is always desirable to be just. By sketching a psychological portrait of the tyrant, he attempts to prove that injustice tortures a man’s
psyche, whereas a just soul is a healthy, happy one, untroubled and calm.
When he has nothing left, must not his desires,
crowding in the nest like young ravens, be crying aloud for food; and he,
goaded on by them, and especially by love himself, who is in a manner the
captain of them, is in a frenzy, and would fain discover whom he can defraud or
despoil of his property, in order that he may gratify them? (Plato, IX 574a,
page 254)
Next he argues that, though each of the three main character types
(money-loving, honor-loving, and truth-loving) have their own conceptions of
pleasure and of the corresponding good life – each choosing his own life as the
most pleasant – only the philosopher can judge because only he has experienced
all three types of pleasure.
One part, we say, was that with which a human being
learns, and another that with which he becomes spirited; as for the third,
because of its many forms, we had no peculiar name to call it by, but we named
it by what was biggest and strongest in it. For we called it the desiring part
on account of the intensity of the desires concerned with eating, drinking, sex,
and all their followers; and so, we also called it the money-loving part,
because such desires are most fulfilled by means of money. (Plato, IX
580d-581a, page 262)
The others should accept the philosopher’s judgment and conclude that
the pleasures associated with the philosophical are most pleasant and thus that
the just life is also most pleasant. He tries to demonstrate that only
philosophical pleasure is really pleasure at all; all other pleasure is nothing
more than cessation of pain.
Despite the fact that
Plato spent so much time outlining his arguments, none of these arguments
actually prove that justice is desirable apart from its consequences – instead,
they establish that justice is always accompanied by true pleasure.
Essentially, Plato’s examples of the three different types of people and the
tyrant serve to show that true pleasure is a product of living justly, but does
not complete the arguments by explaining why such “true pleasure” is so preferable.
In order to prove that justice is in fact always the best course of action and
most desirable, there are some truths that must be established: prosperity is a
universal goal; prosperity is always greater if attained by just means; the
ideal life is one in which the individual lives justly and prospers.
People seek prosperity in every sense of the word. They seek emotional prosperity in their desire to be happy and be in good moods; they seek spiritual prosperity in their thirst to achieve self contentment; and, most of all, they seek physical prosperity in their aspiration to obtain those goods that make them happy. And, by definition, the idea of prosperity demands forward progress on some level. Thus, every person in the world is left at the same starting position: when she must decide whether to move from Point A (starting point) to Point B (prosperity) through just or unjust means.
Regardless how much prosperity one may attain unjustly, he will always acquire more happiness (or be more satisfied with the same prosperity) had he achieved such prosperity through just means. Take for example the act of cheating on an exam. The student who cheated by looking at her neighbors answers and earned a 90% on the test will always feel less satisfied than the student who studied hard and earned the same grade on her own. Reapplied on the large scale, it is a truth that the most ideal life would be to live justly and achieve prosperity. Even those who have attained prosperity through unjust means would likely acknowledge that they are not truly happy or that they would have been happier had they been able to achieve such prosperity through just means (the student who cheated would have loved to have achieved the A- on his own) In Book IX of The Republic, Plato argues that the tyrant, having pursued happiness through unjust means, is the least happy, while the aristocrat (the most just) is the happiest. (Plato, IX 574a, page 254) For example, a sweatshop owner who exploits children for cheap labor and prospers off of it probably is not unaware that he is acting unjustly. Instead, most of those who act unjustly are completely aware that there is another route that involves justice… they simply chose to ignore it. Thus, it is clear that the most ideal situation for any human is one in which he may prosper through just means.
Now that it has been established that it is a natural truth that the most ideal life for any human being is one where he lives justly and prospers, one major question arises: If it is so much more fruitful to achieve happiness through just means, why would any man or woman do so through injustice? In many cases, it is easier to achieve material goods (or achieve them to a greater extent) through injustice than to spend the time acting justly. For example, it was easier for the student to cheat on the exam than to put in the effort to study hard as did his classmate. Similarly, it is easier for a company to make money if its’ products are produced in a sweatshop by underpaid workers than it is if that company were to pay full wage and offer respectable living conditions. In both those cases, the individual who acted unjustly was able to prosper more easily than had he acted justly. And, in both cases, those individuals attained happiness by doing so.
It is because of the ease at which one may be unjust (and the incredible difficulty one may have in being just) that injustice is so common in the world. The problem with the just path to prosperity is that often times he who travels it may very well fail. For example, another student may study arduously for an exam and still perform badly. Likewise, one may work at a low income job for countless years and never achieve the prosperity she strived for.
Though it is possible (and perhaps likely) that one could pursue just means and never attain prosperity, the pursuit alone is worthwhile enough to validate living justly regardless of how much success he attains. Living righteously and acting justly are intrinsically satisfying. He who does so will have the satisfaction of standing firm in his belief of a life of justice. Regardless of the outcome in terms of material goods, a man who looks back on his life and feels that he followed his heart and live justly will always feel fulfilled. While such fulfillment may not come in the form of material goods, he will achieve self contentment. And, “he who is contented is never disappointed,” as Lao Tsu states in Tao Te Ching. (Lao Tsu, Chapter 44) Further, he who is able to live justly will always impart justice onto the future generations of the world. For example, the woman who spends her life working at a low income job will impart the same values of justice and righteousness on her son so that he will be able to live justly as well. Because one’s injustice nearly always harms another individual, having more justly living people in a society is supremely beneficial. To he who is able to live justly but not acquire physical prosperity, there is still intense satisfaction in knowing that his impact benefited the world.
The reason such a simple philosophy as “live justly” is not practiced universally is precisely because it is so difficult to start a just life. When an individual arrives at Point A (the point at which a decision is made) by realizing that she can take one of two paths to achieve the prosperity that he desires (Point B), she may either chose to follow the path of just or unjust living. If she chooses to obtain his goals of prosperity by unjust means, it is impossible for her to then decide to live justly without giving up all that she had acquired unjustly. The way to live the ideal life of justice and prosperity is to take the path of justice. For example, if the CEO of a corporation whose products are produced in sweatshops by underpaid workers decides one day that she has been living an unjust life, she cannot simply decide to live justly. Rather, to become just, she must relinquish all the prosperity she earned by unjust means, for she may not live a just life with possessions that she acquired unjustly.
Plato believed that the greatest and most important of the Forms (eternal, absolute entities such as Goodness, Beauty and Sweetness) is the Form of Good. Though he is unable to explain exactly what the Form of Good is, Plato illustrates a portrait of the philosopher’s soul moving through various stages of cognition (represented by the line and the allegory of the cave) through the visible realm into the intelligible, and finally grasping the Form of the Good. (Plato, VII) For Plato, it is good to live a just life because justice is intrinsically connected to the greatest good, the Form of the Good. However, Plato falls short in his arguments because he fails to explain why it is so much better to achieve the greatest good by just means than to live unjustly and have an easier time acquiring riches. To prove that justice is in fact desirable apart from its consequences, three facts must be understood: 1) humans seek prosperity, 2) no amount of prosperity – if acquired by unjust means – is greater than the satisfaction and contentment achieved justly, and 3) the most perfect life is one of justice and prosperity. By understanding these truths about human nature, it becomes possible to prove that it is always better to be just and suffer than to be unjust and prosper.
Works Cited
Lao Tsu, et al. Tao Te
Ching. 25th Anniversary Edition. Vintage:
Plato, and Allan Bloom. Plato’s
Republic. 2nd ed. Basic Books: