Is Justice a Matter of One’s Constitution?
ERH 207
Word Count: 1627
Help Received:
- Class Notes
- Readings
- Writing Center
Urie N. Conis
Plato describes justice as a matter of one’s constitution, or how people are put together. When he states this, he is pondering the idea of people having innate characteristics that they make their decisions from. In his eyes, to be just, one must be made up of characteristics in a certain way that is balanced. Along with the individual, a just state can also be broken down into similar traits and categorizations. However, Plato’s theory is flawed, and his statements underestimate the capabilities of humans and undermine the complexity of human psychology, thus his view is incorrect. In order to show this in what follows, I will first explain his theory of the just state, followed by objections to his claim, and his likely defense to those objections.
Plato states that a just individual is constituted of different innate characteristics, or parts of the soul, and the greatest of their characteristics determine how they act. These parts are appetites, spirit, and reason. Appetites refers to one’s desires and wants, spirit is in reference to one’s bravery and courage, and reason refers to wisdom. These traits are innate within one’s character, and dictate how one would act, and the skills they would possess. His idea of three parts to the human soul that govern the actions of people and divide them within society directly translates into how he imagines the ideal society, or the just state.
Plato’s idea of a just state is broken into three distinct parts of society. He describes a government where people are assigned their roles and given work based on their relevant skills. Society would take on a pyramid structure, with workers being the base and largest class, and moving up to those who protect and those who rule. Those who are wise are the ones who would rule, and their class would be the smallest. “Some of you have the power of command, and in the composition of these he has mingled gold, wherefore also they have the greatest honor.” (Plato III). Plato states that those with the power to command shall find gold, or wealth, already tied to the position, and therefore not require riches. Rulers would be accommodated, but not paid, as their focus should be purely on the needs of the state, and not on vanity and luxury. The next social order would be the soldiers and protectors. Those placed into this class would be the most brave and patriotic of their peers, and would police the other classes, and protect the country from foreign and internal threats. Lastly, would be the working class. Those who are placed within this social class would be all who lack the wisdom of a leader, courage of a soldier, and would thus be assigned to work that is greatest suited to them.
Plato’s theory seems logical and it would appear to make sense. The idea of a meritocracy seems like the best course of action, as each member of society would be able to do exactly what they are best at, and further the agenda of the state without inefficiency or incompetence. If the rulers of society were all wise men and philosopher kings, then they would make the most optimal decisions for the nation. Likewise, if the soldiers and police were brave and patriotic, then they would not desert their posts or forsake their country for personal gains. It also makes sense for those who are unqualified to fight, and unqualified to lead, as their relevant characteristics are driven by their personal desires to be placed into fields of work that are more laborious in nature. A society composed in such a way appears to be a just and moral society, but Plato misjudged the human composition and the nature of justice itself.
The first objection to Plato’s theory of the just state/individual would be the nature of justice itself. Plato describes justice as doing what one’s innate characteristics compel them to do, but justice could also be more associated with people’s behaviors and principles. Justice isn’t who we are, it’s how we act. If people are driven by the parts of their soul to act one way, but society compels them to act differently, are they not just in doing what is right in the eyes of those who make up society. For if one strays from doing what is acceptable in society based on what their soul drives them to do, how could they possibly be creating a just state. People who are just are made to be so through their actions. Those who choose to do what’s good are just, and those who do what is bad are not. It is not about their characteristics; it is their actions and moral principles that determine who and what is just.
The second error in Plato’s idea is his interpretation of human psychology. Plato states that there are spiritual characteristics which govern people’s behavior and actions, which are innate to their character. This does not account for complex thoughts and motives, as people do not make all decisions based on their appetites, spirit, and wisdom. One such example would be acting on impulse. Someone could be very wise and reasonable, thinking and planning every action they take, and the results that may come of them, but when placed into a state of rage, the way in which they think may change and stray from their common rationality. This is evident in courts. When reviewing suspects in a case, a telltale sign that someone is innocent is becoming angry and distraught when falsely accused. Those who are guilty tend to justify events rather than deny involvement, and the anger one feels when being falsely accused is very normal and not indicative of an unstable character. The same could be said for those who are being influenced by an outside source, such as alcohol. Despite being in a state of inebriation, people are still somewhat in control of how they act. A drunk man may foolishly attack a member of the police when he otherwise would not have done so, but the actions are still his own and society recognizes them as such. Plato’s theory does not consider circumstance and anything else which may influence one’s psychology when addressing the nature of human character.
Lastly, the society Plato describes as ideal and just is not actually so, but is instead undemocratic and restrictive. He believes that one’s character dictates their role within the state, which in turn means that those who are deemed fit for rule are the only ones who shall, and all others are meant to serve the state through laborious tasks. The just state he is describing is what is known as a meritocracy, where the skilled rule and the unskilled work jobs suited for them. In a meritocratic society, those who are unskilled have no way to voice themselves and are completely subordinate to those above them. This goes against the principles of equality and human rights, leading to a society riddled with discontent with one’s lot in life. This unhappiness with those at the bottom of society can be attributed to an unjust society. Such was the case in the many totalitarian societies throughout history such as the Soviet Union and China. This is not only limited to dictatorial governments. In the 1960s, the United States experienced a ideological change that originated with the discontent of those at the bottom of society. The actions of the government were seen as unjust, as they violated human rights, and thus one can see that the rights of a man are not limited to their duties in society.
In response to these objections, Plato would likely have a rebuttal. For justice being related to one’s actions, not inner being, Plato would make the point that a just state/person would never act badly, and that no rule covers all options. You can speculate on what a perfect utopia would be, but there will always be something that causes conflict. To this I say the idea of perfection within one’s actions based upon predetermined characteristics within them is highly unrealistic, as people don’t always act rationally, even when they know what they ought to do. For the second objection, Plato would likely state that all actions can be ultimately broken down into being determined by the virtues he described. This response once again fails to address the nature of complex human psychology and of impulses. One can be mentally dull but be struck with moments of ingenuity, much like a wise person can be made to make an irrational decision by impulse and rage. For the objection on the nature of democracy, Plato would likely make the statement that democracies are run by mobs and fools, and therefore the decisions they make are foolish and irrational, and would not be for the benefit of the whole. To this, one could say that Plato is blinded by an over distrust in democratic decision making based on how Athenian democracy sought to destroy a man who Plato thought very wise. From the masses putting Socrates to death, Plato was influenced to create a society to undermine those who are less skilled and wise than philosophers and the social elite.
Plato’s view of justice as a matter of one’s constitution is incorrect and false. His view of society and the human mind being divided into three spiritual characteristics is overly simplistic and does not account for circumstantial effects on one’s mind. A meritocracy is suppressive to those who are unskilled and leads to unhappiness in those subjugated. People change and evolve as time passes, and with them their innate characteristics change. Therefore, one cannot reasonably believe that justice is a trait characterized by one’s constitution.