Was Plato wrong about justice?

Rottweiler

Near the beginning of Republic Book II, Plato has Socrates and Glaucon debating whether justice is good in and of itself.

After the famous "Ring of Gyges" argument that all men crave to be unjust but are afraid of negative feedback from society, Glaucon asks Socrates to consider a man who is just but has none of the benefits society sometimes rewards justice, but is treated as a monster of injustice:

"This I will proceed to describe; but as you may think the description a little too coarse, I ask you to suppose, Socrates, that the words which follow are not mine. Let me put them into the mouths of the eulogists of injustice: They will tell you that the just man who is thought unjust will be scourged, racked, bound, will have his eyes burnt out; and, at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled. Then he will understand that he ought to seem only, and not to be, just."

Anyone agree with Glaucon?

TheMightyAnonym

Kinda sorta.

While I will agree that injustice is something desirable to the person doling it out, most people have a semblance of a conscience, and would rather keep things fair, even though they might "want" otherwise. This can even be exaggerated in people who feel guilty if they are even a tiny bit better off than others, and feel ashamed when they are blessed above others.

Another item of note is that we get angry when we feel that someone has wronged us, and thus we wish to bring things back to justice by getting revenge. All anger feels righteous, basically.

However, people can get angry and desire revenge on the behalf of others, as well - though whether this is to fit in or because it is genuinely felt is up for debate.

Rottweiler

Anonym, what people's conscience tells them is good or bad varies by culture.

I suspect that by default Humans Are Bastards who would be sociopaths if they slipped on the ring of invisibility, as Glaucon says. Most people born into a given culture, though, will internalize the values of its religion.

TheMightyAnonym

I suppose that is accurate as well, though I would be inclined to count society itself as a person, at least to an extent. Society works best when people care for each other, so while individuals left to their lonesome might lean towards bastardry, society inherently pushes things the other way.

Of course, of society came to the conclusion that injustice against one was desirable, then it would do so; and likewise, one society might be willing to condemn another if they fail to join instead.

Neutral is still opposed to good, so I wouldn't call this setup totally OK. Indeed, there is a leaning towards flaw and injustice, which is very far from perfection.

Rottweiler

We're supposed to. The question is whether Plato is just making Socrates right because it's his dialogue. I mean, Socrates ends up saying that if there really was a just man tortured and executed, he wouldn't be a fool for having been just when it harmed him, but truly happy because justice is rewarded in unchanging bliss in the afterlife.

Now I believe that, but...

LoneWolfEburg

"I suspect that by default Humans Are Bastards who would be
sociopaths if they slipped on the ring of invisibility, as Glaucon says."

Would you?

delta534

There was a place where the virtuous and heroic went in the Greek afterlife that was not half bad called Elysium. As for the original argument, I side with Glaucon for two reasons One, because I have issues with Plato. The other is the argument only focuses on the individual and ignores how a just or unjust act affects the community is was committed in.

FrodoGoofballCoTV

I agree that men "are afraid of negative feedback from society", but I am not convinced that "all men crave to be unjust". I do wish to reap the "benefits society sometimes rewards justice" without having them revoked for the slightest exception, and I admit I also sometimes wish for the benefits nature sometimes rewards injustice without the requirement of being unjust.

"...he ought to seem only, and not to be, just."

I was taught that one must not only avoid impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety. Of course to persecute the innocent is wrong, even if they seem guilty, but to wilfully create a false appearance of injustice in order to pursue a just, but nonetheless discouraged activity, may, in some cases, be harmful to society.

However, a society that persecutes the just is an unjust society and deserves divine retibution, IMHO.

BlackHumor

Plato was wrong about justice; later in the Republic his definition of justice, and for that matter everything else, seems like it exists only to justify some kind of authoritarian state.

BUT in this particular instance Plato is right and Glaucon is asking the wrong question. A single just individual may not profit from it in any way besides reputation; however a just society does profit significantly from being just because a society which has no or few taboos against cheating and stealing tends to collapse from lack of trust.

His example of the Ring of Gyges is also full of crap; I can guess that most people have at least one way of profiting off other people they could do without much or any risk of getting caught that they nevertheless don't do. For example, most rapists are not even formally accused, let alone convicted, and yet most men do not rape.