The present paper is based on Plato’s Book ‘The Republic’, especially Book I and Book IV, with special reference to Book IX. I have primarily concentrated on the concept of Justice which is but the main theme which lingers throughout the Book. I have considered all other explanations of the concept Justice (as mentioned in the Republic) other than that of Plato’s; it to be common beliefs. By common belief I mean a belief which needs to be tested since it may not be adequate but is essential for arriving at the philosophically speculated, socially accredited and utility oriented definition of a concept. I found the same to be true in case of all those answers of Cephalus, Thrasymacus, Glaucon and Adeimantus since they were based on individual moral standards not being enlarged to fit the wider platform concerning the State whereas Plato’s definition truly was directed to be so. So I tried to analyze the opinion of Cephalus, Thrasymacus and latter on of Glaucon and Adeimantus keeping an aim in mind that it would help us to understand the limitedness  as well as the contribution that an individual’s common belief might render. I did this to magnify and support Plato’s position that Justice is both good in itself and also good in its consequences.   I analyzed the definition of Justice as proposed by Plato and the several derivations that I think could be possibly made from Plato’s definition of Justice. The prime thrust being the utilitarian approach that I feel ingrained in Plato’s Theory of Justice. Finally I made efforts to show that though Rawls and Plato   made efforts to understand and propagate the theory of Justice; their thoughts were distant from each other. This paper is undoubtedly in favor of Plato’s definition of Justice but it made me quite thoughtful that how the same concern for the individual citizen made two great thinkers traverse in different direction.

Introduction

                In Part V of Book IV of ‘Republic’ Plato has put forward four cardinal virtues[1]; out of which one was Justice.  This section of the Book was devoted to ‘Justice in State and Individual’. The Book ‘Republic’ as a whole is devoted to developing the concept of Justice. Before Part V of Book IV there are interesting discussions on various definitions of Justice which seems more to be beliefs and matters of common parlance.  Plato examines them all and by slowly eradicating all unsupported beliefs; he finally presents his enigmatic definition of Justice namely; ‘each one to his own job’. We find in Book IV Part V; Plato expressing his holistic approach regarding all four cardinal virtues including Justice; by mentioning that Justice or the ability to mind one’s own business would contribute to the goodness of the state.  It must be mentioned in this connection that it is my strong belief that Plato’s Republic might be read from various temperaments. One may consider it to be a text dealing with moral virtues or one may consider that it is a manuscript or a rule book for the guardians or the rulers of the state or even that the Republic is actually a guide book for building a prosperous and a Just State though it should not carry such implications that Plato was in favor of a Republican form of Government and was trying to persuade Greek citizens in that direction. I would like to make it clear that my intention behind going through the selected sections of this Book was to understand that how a theory of Justice or for that matter how the concept Justice could be developed among common public; making them aware of the fact that a state cannot exist successfully if it is not a Just state which benefits and renders happiness to all its citizens.

The common beliefs on the Concept of Justice-

                Now before discussing the concept of Justice per say; I think it is important to keep a note of all those beliefs regarding Justice which Plato actually proved to be inadequate. In Part 1 Book 1 the concept of Justice was rather introduced as doing what was right. The common thinking of Cephalus (a Greek citizen) in favor of the question what is it to do right end up with answers like the meaning of doing right is to tell the truth and pay one’s debts. In Book I Part I the issue that was introduced was Justice or doing the right. It might be so placed that to be a Just man one must do what is right or the very meaning of Justice being righteousness. What might disturb us is; while Plato was thinking of establishing a Just city state which for our present day should have been a Political and social issue; he actually starts with morality. On the contrary what must satisfy us is the fact that a society not based on Morality cannot surge forward and so it is essential that Politics and morality be merged in the ensuing discussions. In ‘Republic’ we find questions on morality, education, Philosophy and Politics emerge by turn; what is prominent is the enactment of morality and moral values were projected as important for citizens living in a state. It seems so; that a system of Government, the constitution, the legislation would not be able to function well if the individual citizen does not adhere to moral norms. It is also noticeable that individual interest is always related to the greater interest of all living in the state. The reason why I think that enacting the moral virtues or practicing morality was important in Greek city states may be proved particularly by the case of Cephalus; an old, wealthy and experienced Greek citizen. His answer to the question what is Justice? Or what is it to do the right? Was to tell the truth and pay one’s debts. If we analyze this answer then we would find the following implications:

1.       Cephalus is old , experienced[2] and has overcome his passions (sexual appetites).He has probably achieved the courage to tell the truth since he is experienced and experience always makes a man more confident while he shares his advice for other’s good. Hence he has achieved the virtue of courage which surpasses physical courage.

2.       He has also achieved temperance and calmed his physical desires.

3.       Cephalus has probably achieved Justice as well. He does not pretend that he is knowledgeable since being wise with age he places his view on the issue and leaves for some sacrifice to be offered to the Goddess.

4.       So Cephalus is at least doing Justice(paying his debts or due) to the practice set to worship a Goddess or we may look at it as performing his moral duty which is in accordance with the Greek mythology which citizens ought to follow. Hence doing what is right.

But one thing is noticeable here namely that Cephalus’ opinion about Justice or the rightful act was based on his own perception of life, the traditions that he might have followed from childhood or his fortune might have led him to have a perception (like paying ones dues in terms of ;clearing the not paid bills) which others may lack. Moreover, be it Cephalus or Thrasymacus or Adeimantus they all when faces the question what is Justice gives whatever they thought regarding the issue; this proves in a way that they all think that there is a definition or that they already have one definition of Justice which Plato does not. Plato was in fact searching for the definition by eliminating the common beliefs of Cephalus or Thrasymacus or Adeimantus leaving us clues to think that all the answers that he rejected was individualistic and worthy of being analyzed.

In Book I Part I; Thrasymacus; the Sophist, gives his answer to the question what is Justice in the following manner; namely that, Justice or right is what is in the interest of the stronger party. Thrasymacus puts his point as, the ruling party who owns all political powers can easily and forcibly make the subjects perform in accordance to their interest. Thrasymacus’ point on Justice or Right was basically on Injustice rather than on Justice. For example; he finds perusing one’s self interest to be a natural trait in case of the rulers or for a human being in power. It becomes rather difficult to find the exact implications of Thrasymacus’ opinion on Justice and what is Right? It might quite seem to be so that he finds Injustice more suitable and more in practice than Justice is. It might also seem as though he is trying to say that doing wrong or that which is not right requires courage and will power which the stronger sect in the society would naturally inherit as a defining property by the class of stronger people. It seems at one point to be true that practicing Injustice is easy or doing that is not right is easy and Morality is merely a code of conduct which can be restructured at any point of time depending on the situation. It also seems that Thrasymacus was actually delivering his thoughts based on real experience. It is in fact seen people turn out to be unjust or avail unjust means whenever they(here in case of the rulers; since Thrasymacus’ opinion has a mention of the ‘stronger party’)  feel that there is no monitoring of what they do since they have the state machinery at hand or the state machinery working in their favor. Plato on the other hand quite judiciously rejects all of Thrasymacus’ views since his only concern was not the exhibition of corruption that might have crept in society or in human behavior but to construct a state where all good human traits can unveil. Plato was bothered with the ultimate happiness of a human living in a society where all have a community responsibility towards all. The opinions of Thrasymacus may be quite true to what actually happens in a given situation but Plato perhaps wanted us to believe that nevertheless one must harp on the wish that humans with different traits and temperance can and is suitable to stay together; to follow one community life performing and contributing their dues towards society and attaining happiness.  So Plato rejects all three positions upheld by Thrasymacus namely that an unjust man is happier than a Just man, that an unjust man is more knowledgeable or even that an unjust man is stronger than a Just man in molding morality or righteousness at their wish.

Plato’s definition of Justice and a few possible derivations

                When Plato at last unveil his definition of Justice it appears to be thus; “I believe that Justice is the principal we have laid down at the beginning and have consistently followed in founding our state or else some variant of it. We have laid down if you remember and have often repeated that in our state one man has to do one job, the job he was naturally most suited for”[3].(Lines 433,PartV Book IV). In lines 434, Plato again repeats that Justice “is keeping to what belongs to one and doing one’s own job[4]”. Plato’s claim that he had been constantly striving to lay down the concept of Justice or a variant of it and particularly the concept of a just state is true since before Part V Book IV a similar reply was found from Plato’s side to Adeimantus in lines 420.  To Adeimantus’ complain that the Guardians of the state would be mere hired mercenaries Plato has replied that his  aim in constructing a  state was not to promote happiness of a single class but the  happiness of the entire community.  Thus Plato aims at the construction of a happy State and a Just State. I am tempted to exemplify Plato’s aim through the various derivations that his definition of Justice may have. Plato’s fundamental point at the very start of his construction of a Just State was, that each and every members needs must be advanced by their working together. The State must not be only a mere staying together of several labor. It was rather the shared awareness of every man’s satisfying his own and thus satisfying every other member’s fundamental needs. So what is essential to the Just State was the reciprocal inter-relatedness of diverse functions. On a narrower view it might seem that “each man doing his own job” Is an invitation to an anarchical dispersal of individual life careers, where everyone could rather do his own thing. It seems to me that it would quite unjust to judge Plato’s definition on narrower counts. To me Plato’s definition is rather a solution to the problem caused by human nature and our natural environment. It might be put in the following way:-

1.       As mortals we have several needs which must be satisfied for us to survive and flourish.

2.       Having the condition that different men have different expertise also that different jobs that each of us perform requires different skill and hence it is essential that we draw different talents, expertise in order to set up a reciprocal exchange of services.

3.       This would definitely lead to specialization and each individual specialized in his own domain must stick to it for the excellence and good governance of the state.

4.       Thus a State can flourish more and prove to be Just State.

The derivations that could possibly follow from Plato’s Definition of Justice may be enumerated thus:-

1.      Each one doing his own job might in the first place mean that; that everyone at least has found some job. The meaning would be more conspicuous if we put the whole thing in this way; that everyone is engaged in doing some job which enables him to earn his living.

2.      It is found for most of the time that we tend to opt for that kind of job which we are confident of doing.

3.      The reason behind doing the job we are best suited for; is to earn a living by offering services. In return of which we expect to sustain our life. Since we tend to offer the best that we have we find it to be respectful as well.  It does not involve in benefitting from others labor without reciprocating. We also find this attitude to have an utility.

4.      It proves to have an utility because individuals feel that doing his own job (in which he has a certain skill and expertise) allows him to make that one contribution to the social system to which he belongs.

5.       There is even a sense of self realization in each individual while performing the job he is best suited or fitted for. Plato has also politically justified this self realization by not letting it go unchecked. Since citizen’s political and social activities are not mere individual satisfaction but a contribution to the welfare of the whole society; he very much puts a check; for example on the profit making motive of the artisans by imposing limits on accumulation of private wealth, the guardians by a prudently managed foreign policy etc.

6.       As there is a sense of self realization so also there is a sense of self fulfillment which might be derived from Plato’s definition of Justice. It so seems that each citizen by doing his own job in a just State gets only so much self fulfillment as proves consistent with the maximal comparable fulfillment for each of his other co- citizens in the Just State. Again this much of self fulfillment is the right of every citizen to be expected from the State machinery. He should not be denied access to an available social role for which his nature suits him. Hence the state also benefits in getting the truly qualified citizen for the required service.

7.       The encroachment factor is also minimized by each individual doing his own job. I will come back to this point in the last section of this paper.[5]

Justice as Good in Itself and Good in Its Consequences

Out of all these derivations of which I could think of; I would like to exemplify the point number six in particular on other grounds. The point number six as I had put forward was on self fulfillment which might come close to the happiness incurred by being able to do one’s own job. This might again provoke the ideas as what does a man get in performing a Just act. Here somehow the point number six gives us the situation of a Just man living in a Just State and performing Just acts. The only thing that remains uncertain is how does the Just man benefit in doing so? I would like to remind the readers of Part I Book I again; where the dialogue between Thrasymacus and Adeimantus on one side and that of Socrates (Plato’s spokes person) on the other side lurks over the issue; that a Just man is happier than an unjust man. For though Plato’s intention is to establish that Justice is good in itself; his company of men (here Thrasymacus and Adeimantus) has perhaps questions like whether Justice is also good in its consequences.  Here the consequence that they are seeking for is Happiness and it is worth mentioning that in Book IX of the Republic the Perfectly Just man, the Philosopher King and the Tyrant are ranked in terms of Happiness; where the tyrant is shown as the most unhappy and the life of the Just man and that of the Philosopher King to be more pleasant. It was in Book IX that Plato gave the answer to the question originally asked by Glaucon and Adeimantus in Part I Book I.  So as Lee puts it; “Finally, Socrates shows that just man is happier than the unjust. Using the idea of ‘function’, he argues that man needs justice to enable him to perform his own particular function[6]” (PartI I Book I)  This position of Plato was reached only after Glaucon and Adeimantus have put forward their arguments in favor of Injustice and unjust act. They felt that injustice pays a man better than Justice. Glaucon was of the opinion that Justice must be avoided as being unpleasant, but nevertheless people follow it only because of rewards. People who perform Just acts and hence follows Justice as a peculiar virtue do it under compulsion and not because it is a virtue to be followed for it is own sake or that it is good in itself. Hence Glaucon considers that men practice Justice against their will and a Just man would be persuaded in the same way as would be the case of an unjust man. Adeimantus was also of a similar opinion namely that Justice is related to social prestige; for which men are inclined to practice it. So Justice is welcomed for some result and is in fact difficult to practice whereas Injustice is easier to acquire. Plato’s position was starkly the opposite. He claims that Justice is the peculiar virtue of the human mind which helps it to function well. A Just man is undoubtedly a happy man and Justice the highest kind of good which men seek for since it is not only good in itself but also good in its consequences.  Since Glaucon and Adeimantus mostly concentrated on the point that; Justice is not good in itself and did not fetch good consequences, Plato rather puts his case in the form of a question enquiring regarding the result that both Justice and Injustice brings forth on a person. Plato says that “……………….by doing wrong one is doing himself grave and permanent injury[7]”(line 367 Part I Book II)

I would just want to add a few observations of mine particularly to this comparison made by Plato regarding the effects or the consequences that practicing Justice or injustice might bring forth to a man. It may be put in this way:-

1.       The ‘grave and permanent injury’ that Plato talks about might seem that he too was concerned with the consequences in some form of an unjust act or a wrong act or that Plato was concerned about the individual unhappiness and discomfort only.

2.       Plato might even be misinterpreted as lurking individuals of the good consequences of practicing Justice in comparison to injustice.

3.       I would rather say that Plato is not actually trying to weigh cases of practicing Justice and Injustice like Glaucon and Adeimantus. He has placed Justice as the highest good and is rather concerned about the State where individuals are to perform their own job to attain the happiness of life. For Plato perhaps thinking for the happiness of the individual and the way of attaining it is to actually think of the happiness of the State. In other words causing harm to oneself by wrong doings would be more like doing harm to the State. Causing permanent harm to the State thus may be harnessed by practicing Justice.  J.D. Mabbott puts the meaning of Justice as explained by Plato thus; ‘…. “justice” means a condition of the soul and action merely its natural expression[8]’ If we expand Mabbott’s explanation a little then something of this sort might be the case; namely, since our natural behavior and actions never do support an individual’s causing harm to his own self; which is but an expression of Justice; a condition of the soul; self causing harm is out of question. Again it seems to me Plato somehow indulges in a thought that the state is the extended self of the individual and thus quite determinately only by pointing to the ‘grave harm’ that one’s own unjust actions might cause to himself he wisely points to the wellbeing of the State. According to me this is perhaps the most beautiful expression of the feeling of solidarity with the State.

The Theory of Justice and its two proponents: Plato and Rawls

The Final issue on which I would like deal with in this paper would be the opportunity criterion provided by the State which must work as a functional imperative for the State machinery.  I agree that Plato’s definition of Justice; “each man doing his own Job” would be functional only when careers lie open to talents. It is also necessary to identify individual talent and develop it in a dependable way so that the work of the State gets done. This fair chance for all is a sure requirement. Keeping this in mind I would like to enquire a little on the Principles of Justice, ‘the original position’ and the ‘veil of ignorance’ as discussed by Rawls in his famous book “The theory of Justice” as well as revisit Plato’s position on Justice. At the same time I must admit that I do not want to compare Plato’s theory of Justice with that of John Rawls; on the contrary I would rather like to claim that theories of Justice and their proponents did really think differently while discussing on the same issue. Rawls started by presuming the principles of Justice thus; “Let us assume, to fix ideas, that a society is a more or less self- sufficient association of persons who in their relations to one another recognize certain rules of conduct as binding and who for the most part act in accordance with them. Suppose further that these rules specify a system of co-operation designed to advance the good of those taking part in it. Then although a society is a co-operative venture for mutual advantage, it is typically marked by conflict as well as by an identity interest[9]”

It must be noted that Rawls was actually far from thinking of a self sufficient principle that would envisage if people were allowed to do their own job; which was precisely what Plato had been laying stress upon. Plato did not start with the postulation that people would be unhappy because they would rather consider the community of fellow beings as their competitors in having their share of equal distribution which the co-operation of all would bear. Plato was rather thinking of equal contribution and hence a sense of sharing that would develop. In fact Plato was not thinking of a state which was ‘designed’ for the good of its citizens. It was rather an effort on the part of Plato to ignite the rational thought amongst fellow citizen that their acts would express their condition of the soul where the aim was to live by exchange of services. It was somewhat like; if one leads a happy life by practicing Justice , that is if each individual does his own job; he was actually happy by making or giving the opportunity for all others to be happy as well.  I felt that practicing Justice was to Plato almost like a community responsibility of a citizen residing in a state.

John Dillon in his article, ‘Plato and Rawls on the parameters of Just Society[10]’ explains Rawls’ original position leading to the ‘veil of ignorance’ thus; “Rawls is postulating  a formal situation where a number of persons come together, presumably under the stimulus of some need or consciousness of inadequacy, to form a mutual beneficial society. They are off course, all to be taken as being normally rational, decent but self- interested people; they all want to get as good a deal for themselves as they can. However as he goes on to postulate, they are afflicted by a ‘ veil of ignorance’, in respect, not of their own material or spiritual resources-that is to say, they have a fairly good idea of how rich or how smart they are- but rather of the resources of everyone else in the group”

In this connection we must keep in mind that Rawls’ was an abstraction of the social contract[11] theory of Locke, Rousseau and Kant. In his whole projection of Justice as fairness ‘the original position’ corresponds to the State of nature in the social contract theory; with the difference that it was not an actual historical state of affairs which was being talked of. It was rather a hypothetical situation with the precondition that individuals are not expected to know their positions, their fortune, their intelligence or even their strength and thus they even are ignorant about the conditions of good. This not knowing is the ‘veil of ignorance’ and the principles of Justice framed behind this veil; making it fair since none is favored or are in a position of disadvantage. If this be the case then it is evident enough that Rawls was not at all close to Plato though commentators feel the inclination of justifying an original position in case of Plato as well, judging on the basis of the tripartite division of the Ruling Guardians, the auxiliaries and the artisans (Book III, Part IV) and then giving the Definition of Justice as ; “ We laid down, if you remember, and have often repeated, that in our state, one man was to do one job, the job he was naturally most suited for[12]”(Part V Book IV, Lines 433). I would rather like to look into the whole matter in a different way.  It may be placed in the following way:-

1.       For me since we are mortals we have an appetitive character and our wants.

2.       Our wants are rather never to be satisfied, meaning thereby we have endless wants.

3.       If wants are endless they ought to cross each other causing chaos and disruption

4.       This disruption may harm the sovereignty of a State (both internal and external).

5.       Since a Sate must be made secure both externally and internally pacifying all intrusions externally and all collisions internally we need  a Ruling Guardians  and  auxiliaries as assistance

6.       All the above conditions do not in any way keep the individual unaware of his position in society.