What is justice? Is the just life happier than the unjust?
Level 1 → Insight
In Book I, we find that Socrates and friends are discussing the very definition of justice and whether it is more admirable than injustice. We have the four distinct views represented as follows:
- Cephalus → Telling the truth and paying your debts. Justice is honesty and fulfilling your obligations.
- Polemarchus → Helping friends and harming enemies. Justice is loyalty — doing good to those who deserve it and punishing those who do not.
- Thrasymachus → The advantage of the stronger. Justice is whatever benefits those in power. Laws are made by rulers to serve themselves.
- Socrates → In Book I we don’t have a clear read on what he is defining as justice, however he uses the Socratic method to demonstrate why all other ideas were wrong. Instead, Socrates argues that each of the previous definitions are inadequate.
I personally felt that while Socrates had his reasons against Cephalus’s definition, it was this idea which resonated with me the most. It came across very libertarian and simple.
Idea to Carry Forward: Justice can mean many things to many people, which is an important point in a democratic society when upholding laws.
Level 2 → Analysis
Justice Along Two Dimensions: Micro & Macro
Thrasymachus argued vehemently that justice is merely the advantage of the stronger. In our modern humanist society, this comes across as obviously wrong, but he lived in different times. Politics had a very strong presence in Athenian culture and much of The Republic is a discussion of what would make a good, virtuous society. But the politics at play were empirically advantageous towards brute force — to him this is what the reality of politics was. Even today, with Donald Trump in office, we find that he would have favored Thrasymachus’s definition as the only way to truly get things done.
Level 3 → Application
Justice Inside Organizations
Suppose you are leading a company. Should decisions primarily maximize shareholder value, employee well-being, customer outcomes, or something else? How would Socrates critique modern corporate leadership?
The life of a well-ordered state and education of its soldier citizens in music and gymnastics, and in right ideas of God.
Level 1 → Insight
In Book II, we have Socrates continuing his conversation from Book I on justice, but this time it is with Glaucon and Adeimantus — not Thrasymachus. The core question was whether justice was worth pursuing even if it brought no personal improvements via reputation or wealth. Much of the text covers what justice would look like in a new State, and I’ve got to say — I did not find much of Socrates’s logic to be sound. There were too many assumptions and false equivalencies through syllogisms.
For example, they take it as a given, that if one pursues justice and virtue, it is a grievous and toilsome path, while pursuing vices and injustice are of easy attainment but withheld because of laws and public opinion. I would disagree with this point and say that this statement is likely a sign of the times and not a statement we can accept a priori.
Glaucon brings up a story of the Ring of Gyges and how it can make one invisible. I personally would not make use of this ring — it may come across as virtue signaling, but if one abides by the Golden Rule, then I’m of the belief that karma will strongly ensure the same doesn’t happen to me. Even if this isn’t the case, it’s a better principle to abide by than the alternative. Just because everyone has the free will to pursue vices doesn’t mean that they will. Having your own internal compass can be strong enough on its own — living with yourself is a big task and if you’re steeped in vices you’ll find that this becomes difficult to do so.
Glaucon brings up a good point, questioning the need to do justice if we can just repent and appease the Gods to be in their favor. Again, I do think this is likely more a sign of the times.
Idea to Carry Forward: We need to be careful with what we indoctrinate our youth with — even fictional tales can be detrimental to a nascent mind that may take everything literally. Also that a complete education would include more than just learning knowledge, but music and gymnastics as a way to satisfy the physical body and the spirit.
Level 2 → Analysis
Is Justice Merely a Social Contract?
Glaucon claims that justice originates as a compromise between the desire to commit injustice and the fear of suffering it. I would say I have to agree with him. Even if there are individual persons who abide by their own moral code and commit justice even when its not visible — this is likely the exception and not the norm. Laws are created to hold people accountable and to commit justice is to uphold three laws: societal, governmental, and spiritual. If you commit social injustice, you will be ostracized and find it difficult to maintain social credit and a good reputation. If you commit governmental injustice, you can find yourself paying heavy fines or sent to prison for a period of time. If you violate spiritual laws, if you truly adhere to them, then you lose your peace of mind.
If you’re on an island by yourself, then justice isn’t really a thing. Justice is a social contract, because the minute there is another person on the island, you can take actions that are just or unjust — in relation to the other person. On a deserted island with one other person, you have a small society, and maybe even a loose government of rules, but your spirituality will always be there. So you’re always in a position of affecting the other person based on your actions, which can be just or unjust — therefore by virtue of its own name, justice is a social contract.
Exclusion of the poets from the schools. Value of the right sort of music and gymnastics. Selection of the best boys and girls for training as rulers.
Level 1 → Insight
Socrates and Glaucon discuss what it would take to educate a just society.
- The youth should be looked after by guardians who have their best interest at heart.
- Youth should be trained along music and gymnastics — both represent dichotomies of softness and hardness, so one must balance these.
- A ruler is only fit to lead after receiving this education as a youth, and being tested over the years to see if he is truly wise.
- At some point Socrates describes “an old Phoenician tale” where he is essentially describing a caste system — it’s an attempt at explaining how stories could be used to address multiple classes differently.
According to Plato, education first shapes character and only later teaches knowledge. I would agree with this, because there are many different levels you could argue this point from:
- The age in which they are taught has an impact on character (the earlier the more it is ingrained into their habits).
- The way they are educated will influence whether they are someone who takes instruction well or someone who can think critically and pushback where needed.
- The curriculum being taught will influence how they develop their character (if lots of fiction, can they understand concepts abstractly, and if non-fiction, are they able to retain not only facts but the underlying principles?)
Idea to Carry Forward: Building a just society starts with educating the masses, in particular the youth, so we must be careful with the curriculum we give, what is fiction vs. what isn’t, and ensuring that they remain balanced between the softness of music and the hardness of gymnastics.
Level 2 → Analysis
Should society censor harmful ideas?
Plato argues that future guardians should only hear stories that cultivate virtue. I would have to disagree with this argument but with an important caveat. Today our society struggles with the types of information young children are exposed to. With access to the internet and specifically social media, they are now easily influenced by whatever garbage the algorithm decides to send them. This is clearly impacting their virtue and I believe we are raising a generation of weak guardians.
However on the flip side, when you allow censorship to one extent, where do you draw the line? It becomes a slippery slope in which anythign can be liable to censor.
Aside from that, people also learn from negative experiences on what NOT to do. While only learning virtuous things will make being virtuous more likely, not being exposed to virtuous things will test the guardian’s true innate virtue at a later time when he may not be emotionally equipped to handle it. Said differently, children who grow up constrained in a conservative household, will often indulge on vices the moment they are given a small taste of freedom.
So the real answer here would be a moderation of extremities, while erring on the side of showcasing as much virtuous content as possible so virtue can be cultivated on a strong foundation before it gets tested.
Level 3 → Application
Designing a Modern Guardian
To start, let’s explain the method we will use to determine the proper curriculum. First we will start with the pillars of education we want to cover. Second we will discuss the distribution of time allocation across pillars. Third we will provide a lightweight syllabus for each pillar.
Here are the pillars broken down:
- Physical Health
- Spiritual
- Justice
- Governance
- Morality
Suppose you were responsible for educating the future President of the United States—or the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
Using Plato's principles, design their education from age five to twenty-five.
What would they read?
How would they train?
What experiences would they have?
