Plato's notion of Justice and Utopia

Author: Joshua Caesar O. Elegado, IV-BA Philosophy, Plato's Justice

Faculty: Mr. Silvino Balasta, Jr., MPR

Traditional notions of Justice

Throughout the millennium the notion of justice is still in the process of attaining its definition. In the earlier times, specifically in the ancient period, the notion of justice is primarily anchored on a certain category dependent on who will benefit from it. For instance; for Cephalus, justice is dependent on the right conduct, to which it implies that a certain act of justice is only just when it is deemed right such as speaking the truth and giving back to someone we owe from. On the contrary, Plato dislikes the sound of such a claim. Plato questioned the universalizability of Cephalus’ model of Justice. For instance, Cephalus’ claim for justice as giving back an owe. To situate this, if we owe a friend it is right and therefore just. However, if we are to owe an enemy for a fitting response, such as giving back harm because it is something that we owe an enemy, would it be considered just? Plato saw this flaw in Cephalus’ argument of Justice. Just because it is fitting to owe a friend, it does not mean that such an act of an owe can be just in every circumstance there is.

Another notion of justice that Polemarchus introduces is supportive to Cephalus’ claim, that Justice is giving what is proper (doing good to friends and harm to enemies). Plato saw inconsistencies with Polemarchus’ claim, how can we be able to categorize whether something or someone is indeed considered a friend or an enemy. It may sound like a sort of personal justice, but such a version of justice must not be pushed through due to its subjectivity. In its implication, with subjective justice, everyone has the right to inflict harm to any other as long as they see it proper that fits their subjective impression of what an enemy is. One example we can get from this is the WAR ON DRUGS by the PRRD, which advocates for a drug-free society because drugs are considered the state’s enemy. If you are a non-drug user you are safe, if you are a drug user you are an enemy and you are to be erased in society. However, PRRD utilizes such advocacy to eliminate his foes and some innocent poor people. The worst part is, it is justified due to the subjective impression of how one defines a drug user, in such case, everyone can be a drug user, it only takes a subjective impression that a person can be labeled as a drug dealer or a drug-user to harm the desired target.

Justice in the Lens of Society

There are two claims of Justice on the societal scale, justice for the powerful and justice for the weak. The former as the idea of elite rule as a version of Justice was believed to be a fair system to which it ascribes to the good governance of the state through power relation of the superior and the inferior variables in the society, in this case, the superior class is permitted to do whatever they want to the inferior class. It is like the ruling class has an absolute right to rule the state and it is justified to exploit and oppress ruled/governed ones because they are permitted by the sense of might in the concept of justice. Plato does not recommend such an ideal, that is to associate what is just to what is powerful because it simply is not fair, especially to the ruled ones. As a retaliation, the latter version of justice as justice for the weak is due as a response to the former’s claim to compensate for the abomination made by the ruling class.

Plato’s reaction is simple, that justice should not belong to any group whatsoever, rather it should be a social contract. It implies that justice should not be for the stronger nor the weaker, but inclusive to everyone in a certain state. In this way, we can ensure that there cannot be any group that can dominate others in the fight for justice. Therefore, it implies that justice is embedded in everyone’s right to social fairness.

The ideal state for Plato should be comprised of the classifications/ categorization of people (rulers, warriors, artisans). Indeed, society would prosper if such functionalities were to be followed in a strict manner. However, my only critique of Plato’s utopia is that he does not account for people’s freedom for social and political stability. Interference is necessary for the checks-and-balance purpose. In the contemporary world, the notion of Plato’s utopia will not prosper due to today’s immerse social movement towards a human rights-centered society that aims to promote and protect the rights of the people, one of these rights is the right to freedom as an autonomous body that should not be dictated upon. Therefore, Plato’s utopia may champion in terms of functionality and efficiency, but we should not, in any way, rule out people’s choices and freedom. At the very end of the day, the capacity of people for knowing their rights, in order to pave the way to the social contract will always be paramount to social justice.

Critique to Plato’s notion of Justice and Utopia

In the context of the Philippines, where the practice is governance and politics are construed in a democratic setting. In a democracy, the power belongs to the people. The people supervise those putting persons in a seat of power. There are no qualifications of persons running, however, there is a requirement that is relatively petty compared to the position of power he/she may handle when elected. The requirement for managing the highest seat of power in the Philippines is only paramount in a two-set skill of reading and writing. What this means is that anyone can run and be a president regardless of any background he/she may have, even if such person is a criminal, plunderer, under-educated, and so on, as long as he/she is able to read and write.

In Plato’s notion of utopia and justice, such practice in the Philippines cannot flourish for Plato’s concept of justice through specialization. A mere criminal cannot be in any way near to becoming a president. Having such a situation in the Philippines when evaluated in Plato’s sense would be utterly incomprehensible not because it is deemed categorized as an injustice, but a mere stupidity.

The flourishing stupidity as practice in the Philippines is due because democracy permits it to be. Plato’s argument of Utopia will surface uncontestably when situated in the context of the Philippines given the present conditions there is. However, if people were; rational enough to be able to distinguish good from bad decisions; reasonable enough to ground doctrines to pave way for the common good; Educated enough to know their rights as autonomous, free, and equal human beings; The situation now can be suggested in a platform of democracy if such conditions are met. With that being said, we can now account that Plato’s utopia can be ruled out of the equation because of the conditions being more leaning in a well-orderly society which assured that people can be able to make good judgments and decisions in order to create just and fair governance.

As we can see, Plato’s notion of Justice and Utopia can flourish in the context of a state that is disarranged and disordered. For Plato, it would be a shortcut for efficient governance and immediate justice through arranging the state in a manner of specialization. Plato’s utopia does not account for human’s capacity for creating fair judgments that can pave the way to the common good. Plato believed that man should only be limited by factions because man cannot decide for themselves without creating a mob rule.

As an evaluation of Plato’s notion of Justice, indeed that such a notion can create a utopia, however, such qualities may crumble when we are to talk about the human capacity for creating a common good. Just like in the movie Divergent where people are categorized into factions; Dauntless (the brave), Amity (the kind), Erudite (the intelligent), Abnegation (Farmers), and Candor (the honest); despite the limitation of these factions there are Divergents who are diverse that can either be a combination of two factions or combination of all and beyond.

The message of the movie/book Divergent in relation and as a critique to Plato’s utopia is that humans are made up of infinite possibilities, we cannot reduce them into a mere specialization. Human’s capacity to create a fair, just and reasonable state must always be taken into account. Indeed, the Filipino political culture may seem unjust in Plato’s sense, but we cannot administer yet this kind of utopia Plato is advocating for, for there is still a possibility of change and realization for the alleviation of human consciousness for a fair and just society. After all, if we imagine that people are well-informed, educated, rational, and reasonable, I doubt that we will select a criminal into running the highest position in the country. The only difference there is between Plato’s justice and mine is that; true justice will always account for the human capacity for reason and fairness while Plato does not.