REPUBLIC--REMARKS ON ITS MAIN THESIS.
[Side-note: Summary of the preceding chapter.]
The preceding Chapter has described, in concise abstract, that
splendid monument of Plato's genius, which passes under the name
of the [Greek: Politei/a] or Republic. It is undoubtedly the
grandest of all his compositions; including in itself all his
different points of excellence. In the first Book, we have a
subtle specimen of negative Dialectic,--of the Sokratic
cross-examination or Elenchus. In the second Book, we find two
examples of continuous or Ciceronian pleading (like that ascribed
to Protagoras in the dialogue called by his name), which are
surpassed by nothing in ancient literature, for acuteness and
ability in the statement of a case. Next, we are introduced to
Plato's most sublime effort of constructive ingenuity, in putting
together both the individual man and the collective City: together
with more information (imperfect as it is even here) about his
Dialectic or Philosophy, than any other dialogue furnishes. The
ninth Book exhibits his attempts to make good his own thesis
against the case set forth in his own antecedent
counter-pleadings. The last Book concludes with a highly poetical
mythe, embodying a [Greek: Nekui/a] shaped after his own fancy,--and
the outline of cosmical agencies afterwards developed, though with
many differences, in the Timæus. The brilliancy of the Republic
will appear all the more conspicuous, when we come to compare it
with Plato's two posterior compositions: with the Pythagorean
mysticism and theology of the Timæus--or with the severe and
dictatorial solemnity of the Treatise De Legibus.
[Side-note: Title of the Republic, of ancient date, but only
a partial indication of its contents.]
The title borne by this dialogue--the Republic or
Polity--whether affixed by Plato himself or not, dates at least
from his immediate disciples, Aristotle among them.[1] This title
hardly presents a clear idea either of its proclaimed purpose or
of its total contents.
[Footnote 1: See Schleiermacher, Einl. zum Staat, p. 63 seq.;
Stallbaum, Proleg. p. lviii. seq.]
The larger portion of the treatise is doubtless employed in
expounding the generation of a commonwealth generally: from whence
the author passes insensibly to the delineation of a
Model-Commonwealth--enumerating the conditions of aptitude for its
governors and guardian-soldiers, estimating the obstacles which
prevent it from appearing in the full type of goodness--and
pointing out the steps whereby, even if fully realised, it is
likely to be brought to perversion and degeneracy. Nevertheless
the avowed purpose of the treatise is, not to depict the ideal of
a commonwealth, but to solve the questions, What is Justice? What
is Injustice? Does Justice, in itself and by its own intrinsic
working, make the just man happy, apart from all consequences,
even though he is not known to be just, and is even treated as
unjust, either by Gods or men? Does Injustice, under the like
hypothesis, (_i.e._ leaving out all consideration of
consequences either from Gods or from men), make the unjust man
miserable? The reasonings respecting the best polity, are means to
this end--intermediate steps to the settlement of this problem. We
must recollect that Plato insists strongly on the parallelism
between the individual and the state: he talks of "the polity" or
Republic in each man's mind, as of that in the entire city.[2]
[Footnote 2: Plato, Repub. ix. p. 591 E. [Greek: a)poble/pôn pro\s
tê\n e)n au(tô=| politei/an.] x. p. 608 B: [Greek: peri\ tê=s e)n
au(tô=| politei/as dedio/ti], &c.]
[Side-note: Parallelism between the Commonwealth and the
Individual.]
The Republic, or Commonwealth, is introduced by Plato as being the
individual man "writ large," and therefore more clearly
discernible and legible to an observer.[3] To illustrate the
individual man, he begins by describing (to use Hobbes's language)
the great Leviathan called a "Commonwealth or State, in Latin
Civitas, which is but an artificial man, though of greater stature
and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defence
it was intended".[4] He pursues in much detail this parallel
between the individual and the commonwealth, as well as between
the component parts and forces of the one, and those of the other.
The perfection of the commonwealth (he represents) consists in its
being One:[5] an integer or unit, of which the constituent
individuals are merely functions, each having only a fractional,
dependent, relative existence. As the commonwealth is an
individual on a large scale, so the individual is a commonwealth
on a small scale; in which the constituent fractions,
Reason,--Energy or Courage,--and many-headed Appetite,--act each for
itself and oppose each other. It is the tendency of Plato's imagination
to bestow vivid reality on abstractions, and to reason upon
metaphorical analogy as if it were close parallelism. His language
exaggerates both the unity of the commonwealth, and the
partibility of the individual, in illustrating the one by
comparison with the other. The commonwealth is treated as capable
of happiness or misery as an entire Person, apart from its
component individuals:[6] while on the other hand, Reason, Energy,
Appetite, are described as distinct and conflicting Persons,
packed up in the same wrapper and therefore looking like One from
the outside, yet really distinct, each acting and suffering by and
for itself: like the charioteer and his two horses, which form the
conspicuous metaphor in the Phædrus.[7] We are thus told, that
though the man is apparently One, he is in reality Many or
multipartite: though the perfect Commonwealth is apparently Many,
it is in reality One.
[Footnote 3: Plato, Repub. ii. p. 368 D.
"New presbyter is but old priest writ large."--(Milton.)]
[Footnote 4: This is the language of Hobbes. Preface to the
Leviathan. In the same treatise (Part ii. ch. 17, pp. 157-158,
Molesworth's edition) Hobbes says:--"The only way to erect such a
common power as may be able to defend men from the invasion of
foreigners and the injury of one another, is to confer all their
power and strength upon one man or one assembly of men, that may
reduce all their wills by plurality of voices to one will: which
is as much as to say, to appoint one man or assembly of men to
bear their person. This is more than consent or concord: _it is
a real unity of them all in one and the same person_, made by
covenant of every man with every man. This done, the multitude so
united in one person, is called a Commonwealth, in Latin Civitas.
This is the generation of that great Leviathan," &c.]
[Footnote 5: Plato, Republic, iv. p. 423.]
[Footnote 6: Plato, Republic, iv. pp. 420-421.]
[Footnote 7: Plato, Republic, ix. p. 588, x. p. 604, iv. pp.
436-441. ix. p. 588 E: [Greek: ô(/ste tô=| mê\ duname/nô| ta\
e)nto\s o(ra=|n, a)lla\ to\ e)/xô mo/non e)/lutron o(rô=nti, e(\n
zô=on phai/nesthai, a)/nthrôpon.]]
[Side-note: Each of them a whole, composed of parts distinct
in function and unequal in merit.]
Of the parts composing a man, as well as of the parts composing a
commonwealth, some are better, others worse. A few are good and
excellent; the greater number are low and bad; while there are
intermediate gradations between the two. The perfection of a
commonwealth, and the perfection of an individual man, is attained
when each part performs its own appropriate function and no
more,--not interfering with the rest. In the commonwealth there are
a small number of wise Elders or philosophers, whose appropriate
function it is to look out for the good or happiness of the whole;
and to controul the ordinary commonplace multitude, with a view to
that end. Each of the multitude has his own special duty or
aptitude, to which he confines himself, and which he executes in
subordination to the wise or governing Few. And to ensure such
subordination, there are an intermediate number of trained, or
disciplined Guardians; who employ their force under the orders of
the ruling Few, to controul the multitude within, as well as to
repel enemies without. So too in the perfect man. Reason is the
small but excellent organ whose appropriate function is, to
controul the multitude of desires and to watch over the good of
the whole: the function of Energy or Courage is, while itself
obeying the Reason, to assist Reason in maintaining this controul
over the Desires: the function of each several desire is to obey,
pursuing its own special end in due harmony with the rest.
[Side-note: End proposed by Plato. Happiness of the
Commonwealth. Happiness of the individual. Conditions of
happiness.]
The End to be accomplished, and with reference to which Plato
tests the perfection of the means, is, the happiness of the entire
commonwealth,--the happiness of the entire individual man. In
order to be happy, a commonwealth or an individual man must be at
once wise, brave, temperate, just. There is however this
difference between the four qualities. Though all four are
essential, yet wisdom and bravery belong only to separate
fractions of the commonwealth and separate fractions of the
individual: while justice and temperance belong equally to all the
fractions of the commonwealth and all the fractions of the
individual. In the perfect commonwealth, Wisdom or Reason is found
only in the One or Few Ruling Elders:--Energy or Courage only in
the Soldiers or Guardians: but Elders, Guardians, and the working
multitude, alike exhibit Justice and Temperance. All are just,
inasmuch as each performs his appropriate business: all are
temperate, inasmuch as all agree in recognising what is the
appropriate business of each fraction--that of the Elders is, to
rule--that of the others is, to obey. So too the individual: he is
wise only in his Reason, brave only in his Energy or Courage: but
he is just and temperate in his Reason, Courage, and Appetites
alike--each of these Fractions acting in its own sphere under
proper relations to the rest. In fact, according to the
definitions given by Plato in the Republic, justice and temperance
are scarce at all distinguishable from each other--and must at any
rate be inseparable.
[Side-note: Peculiar view of Justice taken by Plato.]
Now in regard to the definition here given by Plato of Justice,
which is the avowed object of his Treatise, we may first remark
that it is altogether peculiar to Plato; and that if we reason
about Justice in the Platonic sense, we must take care not to
affirm of it predicates which might be true in a more usual
acceptation of the word. Next, that even adopting Plato's own
meaning of Justice, it does not answer the purpose for which he
produces it--_viz._: to provide reply to the objections, and
solution for the difficulties, which he had himself placed in the
mouths of Glaukon and Adeimantus.
[Side-note: Pleadings of Glaukon and Adeimantus.]
These two speakers (in the second Book) have advanced the position
(which they affirm to be held by every one, past and
present)--That justice is a good thing or a cause of happiness to
the just agent--not in itself or separately, since the performance
of just acts is more or less onerous and sometimes painful,
presenting itself in the aspect of an obligation, but--because of
its consequences, as being indispensable to procure for him some
ulterior good, such as esteem and just treatment from others.
Sokrates on the other hand declares justice to be good, or a cause
of happiness, to the just agent, most of all in itself--but also,
additionally, in its consequences: and injustice to be bad, or a
cause of misery to the unjust agent, on both grounds also.
Suppose (we have seen it urged by Glaukon and Adeimantus) that a
man is just, but is mis-esteemed by the society among whom he
lives, and believed to be unjust. He will certainly be hated and
ill-used by others, and may be ill-used to the greatest
possible extent--impoverishment, scourging, torture, crucifixion.
Again, suppose a man to be unjust, but to be in like manner
misconceived, and treated as if he were just. He will receive from
others golden opinions, just dealing, and goodwill, producing to
him comfortable consequences: and he will obtain, besides, the
profits of injustice. Evidently, under these supposed
circumstances, the just man will be miserable, in spite of his
justice: the unjust man will, to say the least, be the happier of
the two.
Moreover (so argues Glaukon), all fathers exhort their sons to be
just, and forbid them to be unjust, admitting that justice is a
troublesome obligation, but insisting upon it as indispensable to
avert evil consequences and procure good. So also poets and
teachers. All of them assume that justice is not inviting for
itself, but only by reason of its consequences: and that injustice
is in itself easy and inviting, were it not for mischievous
consequences and penalties more than countervailing the
temptation. All of them either anticipate, or seek to provide,
penalties to be inflicted in case the agent commits injustice, and
not to be inflicted if he continues just: so that the treatment
which he receives afterwards shall be favourable, or severe,
conditional upon his own conduct. Such treatment may emanate
either from Gods or from men: but in either case, it is assumed
that the agent shall be known, or shall seem, to be what he really
is: that the unjust agent shall seem, or be known, to be
unjust--and that the just shall seem also to be what he is.
[Side-note: The arguments which they enforce were not
invented by the Sophists, but were the received views anterior to
Plato.]
It is against this doctrine that the Platonic Sokrates in the
Republic professes to contend. To refute it, he sets forth his own
explanation, wherein justice consists. How far, or with what
qualifications, the Sophists inculcated the doctrine (as various
commentators tell us) we do not know. But Plato himself informs us
that it was current and received in society, before Protagoras and
Prodikus were born: taught by parents to their children, and by
poets in their compositions generally circulated.[8] Moreover,
Sokrates himself (in the Platonic Apology) recommends virtue
on the ground of its remunerative consequences to the agent in the
shape of wealth and other good things.[9] Again, the Xenophontic
Sokrates, as well as Xenophon himself, agree in the same general
doctrine: presenting virtue as laborious and troublesome in
itself, but as being fully requited by its remunerative
consequences in the form of esteem and honour, to the attainment
of which it is indispensable. In the memorable Choice of Heraklês,
that youth is represented as choosing a life of toil and painful
self-denial, crowned ultimately by the attainment of honourable
and beneficial results--in preference to a life of easy and
inactive enjoyment.[10]
[Footnote 8: Plato, Republic, ii. pp. 363-364.]
[Footnote 9: Plato, Apolog. Sokrat. p. 30 B.
[Greek: le/gôn o(/ti ou)k e)k chrêma/tôn a)retê\ gi/gnetai, a)ll'
e)x a)retê=s chrê/mata kai\ ta)/lla a)gatha\ toi=s a)nthrô/pois
a(/panta kai\ i)di/a kai\ dêmosi/a|.]
Xenophon in the Cyropædia puts the following language into the
mouth of the hero Cyrus, in addressing his officers (Cyrop. i. 5,
9). [Greek: Kai/toi e)/gôge oi)=mai, ou)demi/an a)retê\n
a)skei=sthai u(p' a)nthrô/pôn, ô(s mêde\n ple/on e)/chôsin oi(
e)sthloi\ geno/menoi tô=n ponêrô=n; a)ll' oi(/ te tô=n parauti/ka
ê(donô=n a)pecho/menoi, ou)/ch i(/na mêde/pote eu)phranthô=si,
tou=to pra/ttousin, a)ll' ô(s dia\ tau/tên tê\n e)gkra/teian
pollapla/sia ei)s to\n e)/peita chro/non eu)phranou/menoi, ou(/tô
paraskeua/zontai], &c.
The love of praise is represented as the prominent motive of Cyrus
to the practice of virtue (i. 5, 12, i. 2, 1).
Compare also Xenophon, Cyropæd. ii. 3, 5-15, vii. 5, 82, and
Xenophon, Economic. xiv. 5-9; Xenophon, De Venatione, xii.
15-19.]
[Footnote 10: Xenophon, Memorab. ii. 1, 19-20, &c. We read in
the 'Works and Days' of Hesiod, 287:--
[Greek: Tê\n me/n toi kako/têta kai\ i)lado\n e)/stin e)le/sthai
R(êi+di/ôs; lei/ê me\n o(do/s, ma/la d' e)ggu/thi nai/ei.
Tê=s d' a)retê=s i(drô=ta theoi\ propa/roithen e)/thêkan
A)tha/natoi; makro\s de\ kai\ o)/rthios oi)=mos e)p' au)tê/n,
Kai\ trê=chus toprô=ton; e)pê\n d' ei)s a)/kron i(/kêai,
R(êi+di/ê d' ê)peita pe/lei, chalepê/ per e)ou=sa.]
It is remarkable that while the Xenophontic Sokrates cites these
verses from Hesiod as illustrating and enforcing the drift of his
exhortation, the Platonic Sokrates cites them as misleading, and
as a specimen of the hurtful errors instilled by the poets
(Republic, ii. p. 364 D).]
We see thus that the doctrine which the Platonic Sokrates impugns
in the Republic, is countenanced elsewhere by Sokratic authority.
It is, in my judgment, more true than that which he opposes to it.
The exhortations and orders of parents to their children, which he
condemns--were founded upon views of fact and reality more correct
than those which the Sokrates of the Republic would substitute in
place of them.
[Side-note: Argument of Sokrates to refute them. Sentiments
in which it originates. Panegyric on Justice.]
Let us note the sentiment in which Plato's creed here originates.
He desires, above every thing, to stand forward as the champion
and panegyrist of justice--as the enemy and denouncer of
injustice. To praise justice, not in itself, but for its
consequences--and to blame injustice in like manner--appears
to him disparaging and insulting to justice.[11] He is not
satisfied with showing that the just man benefits others by his
justice, and that the unjust man hurts others by his injustice: he
admits nothing into his calculation, except happiness or misery to
the agent himself: and happiness, moreover, inherent in the
process of just behaviour--misery inherent in the process of
unjust behaviour--whatever be the treatment which the agent may
receive from either Gods or men. Justice _per se_ (affirms
Plato) is the cause of happiness to the just agent, absolutely and
unconditionally: injustice, in like manner, of misery to the
unjust--_quand même_--whatever the consequences may be either
from men or Gods. This is the extreme strain of panegyric
suggested by Plato's feeling, and announced as a conclusion
substantiated by his reasons. Nothing more thoroughgoing can be
advanced in eulogy of justice. "Neither the eastern star nor the
western star is so admirable"--to borrow a phrase from
Aristotle.[12]
[Footnote 11: Plato, Republic, ii. p. 368 B-C. [Greek: de/doika
ga\r mê\ ou)d' o(/sion ê)=| parageno/menon dikaiosu/nê|
kakêgoroume/nê| a)pagoreu/ein kai\ mê\ boêthei=n], &c.]
[Footnote 12: Aristot. Ethic. Nikom. v. 3 (1), 1129, b. 28.
[Greek: ou)/th' e(/speros ou)/th' e(ô=|os ou(/tô thaumasto/s.]]
Plato is here the first proclaimer of the doctrine afterwards so
much insisted on by the Stoics--the all-sufficiency of virtue to
the happiness of the virtuous agent, whatever may be his fate in
other respects--without requiring any farther conditions or
adjuncts. It will be seen that Plato maintains this thesis with
reference to the terms _justice_ and its opposite
_injustice_; sometimes (though not often) using the general
term _virtue_ or wisdom, which was the ordinary term with the
Stoics afterwards.
[Side-note: Different senses of justice--wider and narrower
sense.]
The ambiguous meaning of the word _justice_ is known to Plato
himself (as it is also to Aristotle). One professed purpose of the
dialogue called the Republic is to remove such ambiguity. Apart
from the many other differences of meaning (arising from
dissentient sentiments of different men and different ages), there
is one duplicity of meaning which Aristotle particularly dwells
upon.[13] In the stricter and narrower sense, justice comprehends
only those obligations which each individual agent owes to
others, and for the omission of which he becomes punishable as
unjust--though the performance of them, under ordinary
circumstances, carries little positive merit: in another and a
larger sense, justice comprehends these and a great deal more,
becoming co-extensive with wise, virtuous, and meritorious
character generally. The narrower sense is that which is in more
common use; and it is that which Plato assumes provisionally when
he puts forward the case of opponents in the speeches of Glaukon
and Adeimantus. But when he comes to set forth his own
explanation, and to draw up his own case, we see that he uses the
term justice in its larger sense, as the condition of a mind
perfectly well-balanced and well-regulated: as if a man could not
be just, without being at the same time wise, courageous, and
temperate. The just man described in the counter-pleadings of
Glaukon and Adeimantus, would be a person like the Athenian
Aristeides: the unjust man whom they contrast with him, would be
one who maltreats, plunders, or deceives others, or usurps power
over them. But the just man, when Sokrates replies to them and
unfolds his own thesis, is made to include a great deal more: he
is a person in whose mind each of the three constituent elements
is in proper relation of controul or obedience to the others, so
that the whole mind is perfect: a person whose Reason, being
illuminated by contemplation of the Universals or self-existent
Ideas of Goodness, Justice, Virtue, has become qualified to
exercise controul over the two inferior elements: one of which
(Energy) is its willing subordinate and auxiliary--while the
lowest of the three (Appetite) is kept in regulation by the joint
action of the two. The just man, so described, becomes identical
with the true philosopher: no man who is not a philosopher
can be just.[14] Aristeides would not at all correspond to
the Platonic ideal of justice. He would be a stranger to the
pleasure extolled by Plato as the exclusive privilege of the just
and virtuous--the pleasure of contemplating universal Ideas and
acquiring extended knowledge.[15]
[Footnote 13: Aristotel. Eth. Nikom. v. 2 (1), 1129, a. 25.
[Greek: e)/oike de\ pleonachô=s le/gesthai ê( dikaiosu/nê kai\ ê(
a)diki/a.]
Also v. 3 (1), 1130, a. 3. [Greek: dia\ de\ to\ au)to\ tou=to kai\
a)llo/trion a)gatho\n dokei= ei)=nai ê( dikaiosu/nê, mo/nê tô=n
a)retô=n, o(/ti pro\s e(/teron e)stin; a)/llô| ga\r ta\
sumphe/ronta pra/ttei, ê)\ a)/rchonti ê)\ koinô=|.]
This proposition--that justice is [Greek: a)llo/trion
a)gatho/n]--is the very proposition which Thrasymachus is
introduced as affirming and Sokrates as combating, in the first
book of the Republic.
Compare also Aristotle's Ethica Magna, i. 34, p. 1193, b. 19,
where the same explanation of justice is given: also p. 1194, a.
7, where the Republic of Plato is cited, and the principle of
reciprocity, as laid down at the end of the second book of the
Republic, is repeated. We read in a fragment of the lost treatise
of Cicero, De Republicâ (iii. 6, 7):--"Justitia foras spectat, et
projecta tota est atque eminet.--Quæ virtus, præter cæteras, tota
se ad alienas porrigit utilitates atque explicat."]
[Footnote 14: This is the same distinction as that drawn by
Epiktetus between the [Greek: philo/sophos] and the [Greek:
i)diô/tês] (Arrian, Epiktet. iii. 19). An [Greek: i)diô/tês] may
be just in the ordinary meaning of the word. Aristeides was an
[Greek: i)diô/tês]. The Greek word [Greek: i)diô/tês], designating
the ordinary average citizen, as distinguished from any special or
professional training, is highly convenient.]
[Footnote 15: Plato, Republic, ix. p. 582 C. [Greek: tê=s de\ tou=
o)/ntos the/as, oi(/an ê(donê\n e)/chei, a)du/naton a)/llô|
gegeu=sthai plê\n tô=| philoso/phô|.]]
[Side-note: Plato's sense of the word Justice or
Virtue--self-regarding.]
The Platonic conception of justice or Virtue on the one side, and
of Injustice or Vice on the other, is self-regarding and
prudential. Justice is in the mind a condition analogous to good
health and strength in the body--(_mens sana in corpore
sano_)--Injustice is a condition analogous to sickness,
corruption, impotence, in the body.[16] The body is healthy, when
each of its constituent parts performs its appropriate function:
it is unhealthy, when there is failure in this respect, either
defective working of any part, or interference of one part with
the rest. So too in the just mind, each of its tripartite
constituents performs its appropriate function--the rational mind
directing and controuling, the energetic and appetitive minds
obeying such controul. In the unjust mind, the case is opposite:
Reason exercises no supremacy: Passion and Appetite, acting each
for itself, are disorderly, reckless, exorbitant. To possess a
healthy body is desirable for its consequences as a means towards
other constituents of happiness; but it is still more desirable in
itself, as an essential element of happiness _per se_,
_i.e._, the negation of sickness, which would of itself make
us miserable. On the other hand, an unhealthy or corrupt body is
miserable by reason of its consequences, but still more miserable
_per se_, even apart from consequences. In like manner, the
just mind blesses the possessor twice: first and chiefly, as
bringing to him happiness in itself--next also, as it leads to
ulterior happy results:[17] the unjust mind is a curse to its
possessor in itself, and apart from results--though it also
leads to ulterior results which render it still more a curse to
him.
[Footnote 16: Plato, Republic, ix. p. 591 B, iv. p. 444 E.]
[Footnote 17: Plato, Republic, ii. p. 367 C. [Greek: e)peidê\
ou)=n ô(molo/gêsas tô=n megi/stôn a)gathô=n ei)=nai dikaiosu/nên,
a(\ tô=n te a)pobaino/ntôn a)p' au)tô=n e(/neka a)/xia
kektê=sthai, _polu\ de\ ma=llon au)ta\ au(tô=n_], &c.]
This theory respecting justice and injustice was first introduced
into ethical speculation by Plato. He tells us himself (throughout
the speeches ascribed to Glaukon and Adeimantus), that no one
before him had announced it: that all with one accord[18]--both
the poets in addressing an audience, and private citizens in
exhorting their children--inculcated a different doctrine,
enforcing justice as an onerous duty, and not as a
self-recommending process: that he was the first who extolled justice
in itself, as conferring happiness on the just agent, apart from
all reciprocity or recognition either by men or Gods--and the
first who condemned injustice in itself, as inflicting misery on
the unjust agent, independent of any recognition by others. Here
then we have the first introduction of this theory into ethical
speculation. Injustice is an internal taint, corruption of mind,
which (like bad bodily health) is in itself misery to the agent,
however he may be judged or treated by men or Gods; and justice is
(like good bodily health) a state of internal happiness to the
agent, independent of all recognition and responsive treatment
from others.
[Footnote 18: Plato, Republic, ii. p. 364 A. [Greek: pa/ntes e)x
e(no\s sto/matos u(mnou=sin], &c. Also p. 366 D.]
[Side-note: He represents the motives to it, as arising from
the internal happiness of the just agents.]
The Platonic theory, or something substantially equivalent to it
under various forms of words, has been ever since upheld by
various ethical theorists, from the time of Plato downward.[19]
Every one would be glad if it could be made out as true: Glaukon
and Adeimantus are already enlisted in its favour, and only demand
from Sokrates a decent justification for their belief. Moreover,
those who deny its truth incur the reproach of being deficient in
love of virtue or in hatred of vice. What is still more
remarkable--Plato has been complimented as if his theory had been
the first antithesis to what is called the "selfish theory of
morals"--a compliment which is certainly noway merited: for
Plato's theory is essentially self-regarding.[20] He does not
indeed lay his main stress on the retribution and punishments
which follow injustice, because he represents injustice as being
itself a state of misery to the unjust agent: nor upon the rewards
attached to justice, because he represents justice itself as a
state of intrinsic happiness to the just agent. Nevertheless the
motive to performance of justice, and to avoidance of injustice,
is derived in his theory (as it is in what is called the selfish
theory) entirely from the happiness or misery of the agent
himself. The just man is not called upon for any self-denial or
self-sacrifice, since by the mere fact of being just, he acquires
a large amount of happiness: it is the unjust man who, from
ignorance or perversion, sacrifices that happiness which just
behaviour would have ensured to him. Thus the Platonic theory is
entirely self-regarding; looking to the conduct of each separate
agent as it affects his own happiness, not as it affects the
happiness of others.
[Footnote 19: It will be found maintained by Shaftesbury and
Hutcheson and impugned by Rutherford in his Essay on Virtue: also
advocated by Sir James Mackintosh in his Dissertation on Ethical
Philosophy, prefixed to the Encyclopædia Britannica; and
controverted, or rather reduced to its proper limits, by Mr. James
Mill, in his very acute and philosophical volume, Fragment on
Mackintosh, published in 1835, see pp. 174-188 seq. Sir James
indeed uses the word Benevolence where Plato uses that of Justice:
he speaks of "the inherent delights and intrinsic happiness of
Benevolence," &c.]
[Footnote 20: Stallbaum, Proleg. ad Plat. Rep. p. lvii. "Quo facto
deinceps ad gravissimam totius sermonis partem ita transitur, ut
inter colloquentes conveniat, justitiæ vim et naturam eo modo esse
investigandam, ut emolumentorum atque commodorum ex eâ
redundantium nulla plané ratio habeatur."
This is not strictly exact, for Plato claims on behalf of justice
not only that the performance of it is happy in itself, but also
that it entails an independent result of ulterior happiness. But
he dwells much less upon the second point; which indeed would be
superfluous if the first could be thoroughly established. Compare
Cicero, Tusc. Disput. v. 12-34, and the notes on Mr. James
Harris's Three Treatises, p. 351 seq., wherein the Stoical
doctrine--[Greek: Pa/nta au(tou= e(/neka pra/ttein]--is
explained.]
[Side-note: His theory departs more widely from the truth
than that which he opposes. Argument of Adeimantus discussed.]
So much to explain what the Platonic theory is. But when we ask
whether it consists with the main facts of society, or with the
ordinary feelings of men living in society, the reply must be in
the negative.
"If" (says Plato, putting the words into the counter-pleading of
Adeimantus)--"If the Platonic theory were preached by all of you,
and impressed upon our belief from childhood, we should not have
watched each other to prevent injustice; since each man would have
been the best watch upon himself, from fear lest by committing
injustice he should take to his bosom the maximum of evil."[21]
[Footnote 21: Plato, Republic, ii. p. 367 A. [Greek: ei) ga\r
ou(/tôs e)le/geto e)x a)rchê=s u(po\ pa/ntôn u(mô=n kai\ e)k ne/ôn
ê(ma=s e)pei/thete, ou)k a)\n a)llê/lous e)phula/ttomen mê\
a)dikei=n, a)ll' au)to\s au(tou= ê)=n e(/kastos a)/ristos phu/lax,
dediô\s mê\ a)dikô=n tô=| megi/stô| kakô=| xu/noikos ê)=|.]
These words are remarkable. They admit of two constructions:--1. If
this Platonic theory were true. 2. If the Platonic theory,
though not true, were constantly preached and impressed upon every
one's belief from childhood.
Understanding the words in the first of these two constructions,
the hypothetical proposition put into the mouth of Adeimantus is a
valid argument against the theory afterwards maintained by
Sokrates. If the theory were conformable to facts, no precautions
would need to be taken by men against the injustice of each other.
But such precautions have been universally recognised as
indispensable, and universally adopted. Therefore the Sokratic
theory is not conformable to facts. It is not true that the
performance of duty (considered apart from consequences) is
self-inviting and self-remunerative--the contrary path self-deterring
and self-punitory--to each individual agent. Plato might perhaps
argue that it would be true, if men were properly educated; and
that the elaborate education which he provides for his Guardians
in the Republic would suffice for this purpose. But even if this
were granted, we must recollect that the producing Many of his
Republic would receive no such peculiar education.
Understanding the words in the second construction, they would
then mean that the doctrine, though not true, ought to be preached
and accredited by the lawgiver as an useful fiction: that if every
one were told so from his childhood, without ever hearing either
doubt or contradiction, it would become an established creed which
each man would believe, and each agent would act upon: that the
effect in reference to society would therefore be the same as if
the doctrine were true. This is in fact expressly affirmed by
Plato in another place.[22] Now undoubtedly the effect of
preaching and teaching, assuming it to be constant and unanimous,
is very great in accrediting all kinds of dogmas. Plato believed
it to be capable of almost unlimited extension--as we may see by
the prescriptions which he gives for the training of the Guardians
in his Republic. But to persuade every one that the path of duty
and justice was in itself inviting, would be a task overpassing
the eloquence even of Plato, since every man's internal
sentiment would refute it. You might just as well expect to
convince a child, through the declarations and encouragements of
his nurse, that the medicine prescribed to him during sickness was
very nice. Every child has to learn obedience as a necessity,
under the authority and sanction of his parents. You may assure
him that what is at first repulsive will become by habit
comparatively easy: and that the self-reproach, connected with
evasion of duty, will by association become a greater pain than
that which is experienced in performing duty. This is to a great
degree true, but it is by no means true to the full extent: still
less can it be made to appear true before it has been actually
realised. You cannot cause a fiction like this to be universally
accredited. A child is compelled to practise justice by the fear
of displeasure and other painful consequences from those in
authority over him: the reason for bringing this artificial motive
to bear upon him, is, that it is essential in the first instance
for the comfort and security of others: in the second instance for
his own. In Plato's theory, the first consideration is omitted,
while not only the whole stress is laid upon the second, but more
is promised in regard to the second than the reality warrants.
[Footnote 22: Plato, Legg. ii. pp. 663-664.]
The opponents whom the Platonic Sokrates here seeks to confute
held--That Justice is an obligation in itself onerous to the
agent, but indispensable in order to ensure to him just dealing
and estimation from others--That injustice is a path in itself
easy and inviting to the agent, but necessary to be avoided,
because he forfeits his chance of receiving justice from others,
and draws upon himself hatred and other evil consequences. This
doctrine (argues Plato) represents the advantages of justice to
the just agent as arising, not from his actually being just, but
from his seeming to be so, and being reputed by others to be so:
in like manner, it represents the misery of injustice to the
unjust agent as arising not from his actually being unjust, but
from his being reputed to be so by others. The inference which a
man will naturally draw from hence (adds Plato) is, That he must
aim only at seeming to be just, not at being just in reality: that
he must seek to avoid the reputation of injustice, not injustice
in reality: that the mode of life most enviable is, to be unjust
in reality, but just in seeming--to study the means either of
deceiving others into a belief that you are just, or of coercing
others into submission to your injustice.[23] This indeed cannot
be done unless you are strong or artful: it you are weak or
simple-minded, the best thing which you can do is to be just. The
weak alone are gainers by justice: the strong are losers by it,
and gainers by injustice.[24]
[Footnote 23: Plato, Republic, ii. pp. 362-367.]
[Footnote 24: Plato, Republic, ii. p. 366 C.]
These are legitimate corollaries (so Glaukon and Adeimantus are
here made to argue) from the doctrine preached by most fathers to
their children, that the obligations of justice are in themselves
onerous to the just agent, and remunerative only so far as they
determine just conduct on the part of others towards him. Plato
means, not that fathers, in exhorting their children, actually
drew these corollaries: but that if they followed out their own
doctrine consistently, they would have drawn them: and that there
is no way of escaping them, except by adopting the doctrine of the
Platonic Sokrates--That justice is in itself a source of happiness
to the just agent, and injustice a source of misery to the unjust
agent--however each of them may be esteemed or treated by others.
[Side-note: A Reciprocity of rights and duties between men
in social life--different feelings towards one and towards the
other.]
Now upon this we may observe, that Plato, from anxiety to escape
corollaries which are only partially true, and which, in so far as
they are true, may be obviated by precautions--has endeavoured to
accredit a fiction misrepresenting the constant phenomena and
standing conditions of social life. Among those conditions,
reciprocity of services is one of the most fundamental. The
difference of feeling which attaches to the services which a man
renders, called duties or obligations--and the services which he
receives from others, called his rights--is alike obvious and
undeniable. Each individual has both duties and rights: each is
both an agent towards others, and a patient or sentient from
others. He is required to be just towards others, they are
required to be just towards him: he in his actions must have
regard, within certain limits, to their comfort and security--they
in their actions must have regard to his. If he has obligations
towards them, he has also rights against them; or (which is the
same thing) they have obligations towards him. If punishment
is requisite to deter him from doing wrong to them, it is equally
requisite to deter them from doing wrong to him. Whoever theorises
upon society, contemplating it as a connected scheme or system
including different individual agents, must accept this
reciprocity as a fundamental condition. The rights and
obligations, of each towards the rest, must form inseparable and
correlative parts of the theory. Each agent must be dealt with by
others according to his works, and must be able to reckon
beforehand on being so dealt with:--on escaping injury or hurt,
and receiving justice, from others, if he behaves justly towards
them. The theory supposes, that whether just or unjust, he will
appear to others what he really is, and will be appreciated
accordingly.[25]
[Footnote 25: Euripid. Herakleid. 425.
[Greek: Ou) ga\r turanni/d', ô(/ste barba/rôn, e)/chô,
A)ll', ê)\n di/kaia drô=, di/kaia pei/somai.]
In a remarkable passage of the Laws, Plato sets a far higher value
upon correct estimation from others, which in the Republic he
depicts under the contemptuous appellation of show or seeming.
Plato, Legg. xii. p. 950 B. [Greek: Chrê\ de\ ou)/pote peri\
smikrou= poiei=sthai to\ dokei=n a)gathou\s ei)=nai toi=s a)/llois
ê)\ mê\ dokei=n; ou) ga\r o(/son ou)si/as a)retê=s a)pesphalme/noi
tugcha/nousin oi( polloi/, tosou=ton kai\ tou= kri/nein tou\s
a)/llous oi( ponêroi\ kai\ a)/chrêstoi, thei=on de/ ti kai\
eu)/stocho/n e)sti kai\ toi=s kakoi=s. ô(/ste pa/mpolloi kai\ tô=n
spho/dra kakô=n eu)= toi=s lo/gois kai\ tai=s do/xais diairou=ntai
tou\s a)mei/nous tô=n a)nthrô/pôn kai\ tou\s chei/rous. Dio\
kalo\n tai=s pollai=s po/lesi to\ parake/leusma/ e)sti, protima=|n
tê\n eu)doxi/an pro\s tô=n pollô=n; to\ me\n ga\r o)rtho/taton
kai\ me/giston, o)/nta a)gatho\n a)lêthô=s ou(/tô to\n eu)/doxon
bi/on thêreu/ein--chôri\s de\ mêdamô=s, to/n ge te/leon a)/ndra
e)so/menon.]]
The fathers of families, whose doctrine Plato censures, adopted
this doctrine of reciprocity, and built upon it their exhortations
to their children. "Be just to others: without that condition, you
cannot expect that they will be just to you." Plato objects to
their doctrine, on the ground, that it assumed justice to be
onerous to the agent, and therefore indirectly encouraged the
evading of the onerous preliminary condition, for the purpose of
extorting or stealing the valuable consequent without earning it
fairly. Persons acting thus unjustly would efface reciprocity by
taking away the antecedent. Now Plato, in correcting them, sets up
a counter-doctrine which effaces reciprocity by removing the
consequent. His counter-doctrine promises me that if I am just
towards others, I shall be happy in and through that single
circumstance; and that I ought not to care whether they behave
justly or unjustly towards me. Reciprocity thus disappears. The
authoritative terms _right_ and _obligation_ lose all
their specific meaning.
[Side-note: Plato's own theory, respecting the genesis
of society, is based on reciprocity.]
In thus eliminating reciprocity--in affirming that the performance
of justice is not an onerous duty, but in itself happiness-giving,
to the just agent--Plato contradicts his own theory respecting the
genesis and foundation of society. What is the explanation which
he himself gives (in this very Republic) of the primary origin of
a city? It arises (he says) from the fact, that each individual
among us is not self-sufficing, but full of wants. All having many
wants, each takes to himself others as partners and auxiliaries to
supply them: thus grows up the aggregation called a city.[26] Each
man gives to another, and receives from another, in the belief
that it will be better for him to do so. It is found most
advantageous to all, that each man shall devote himself
exclusively to one mode of production, and shall exchange his
produce with that of others. Such interchange of productions and
services is the generating motive which brings about civic
communion.[27] Justice and injustice will be found in certain
modes of carrying on this useful interchange between each man and
the rest.[28]
[Footnote 26: Plato, Republic, ii. p. 369 B-C. [Greek: gi/gnetai
po/lis, e)peidê\ tugcha/nei ê(mô=n e(/kastos ou)k au)ta/rkês
a)lla\ pollô=n e)ndeê/s . . . metadi/dôsi dê\ a)/llos a)/llô|,
ei)/ ti metadi/dôsin, ê)\ metalamba/nei, _oi)o/menos au(tô=|
a)/meinon ei)=nai_ . . . poiê/sei de\ au)tê\n (tê\n po/lin),
ô(s e)/oiken, ê)\ _ê(mete/ra chrei/a_.]]
[Footnote 27: Plato, Republic, ii. pp. 371 B. [Greek: Ti/ de\ dê/?
e)n au)tê=| tê=| po/lei pô=s a)llê/lois metadô/sousin ô(=n a)\n
e(/kastoi e)rga/zôntai? _ô(=n dê\_ e(/neka _kai\ koinôni/an
poiêsa/menoi po/lin ô)|ki/samen_.]]
[Footnote 28: Plato, Republ. ii. pp. 371 E-372 A. [Greek: Pou=
ou)=n a)/n pote e)n au)tê=| (tê=| po/lei) ei)/ê ê(/ te dikaiosu/nê
kai\ ê( a)diki/a? . . . E)gô\ ou)k e(nnoô=, ei) mê/ pou _e)n
au)tô=n tou/tôn chrei/a| tini\ tê=| pro\s a)llê/lous_.]]
Here Plato expressly declares the principle of reciprocity to be
the fundamental cause which generates and sustains the communion
called the city. No man suffices to himself: every man has wants
which require supply from others: every man can contribute
something to supply the wants of others. Justice or injustice have
place, according as this reciprocal service is carried out in one
manner or another. Each man labours to supply the wants of others
as well as his own.
This is the primitive, constant, indispensable, bond whereby
society is brought and held together. Doubtless it is not the only
bond, nor does Plato say that it is. There are other auxiliary
social principles besides, of great value and importance: but they
presuppose and are built upon the fundamental
principle--reciprocity of need and service--which remains when we
reduce society to its lowest terms; and which is not the less real
as underlying groundwork, though it is seldom enunciated separately,
but appears overlaid, disguised, and adorned, by numerous
additions and refinements. Plato correctly announces the
reciprocity of need and service as one indivisible, though complex
fact, when looked at with reference to the social communion.
Neither of the two parts of that fact, without the other part,
would serve as adequate groundwork. Each man must act, not for
himself alone, but for others also: he must keep in view the
requirements of others, to a certain extent, as well as his own.
In his purposes and scheme of life, the two must be steadily
combined.
[Side-note: Antithesis and correlation of obligation and
right. Necessity of keeping the two ideas together, as the basis
of any theory respecting society.]
It is clear that Plato--in thus laying down the principle of
reciprocity, or interchange of service, as the ground-work of the
social union--recognises the antithesis, and at the same time the
correlation, between obligation and right. The service which each
man renders to supply the wants of others is in the nature of an
onerous duty; the requital for which is furnished to him in the
services rendered by others to supply his wants. It is payment
against receipt, and is expressly so stated by Plato--which every
man conforms to, "believing that he will be better off thereby".
Taking the two together, every man is better off; but no man would
be so by the payment alone; nor could any one continue paying out,
if he received nothing in return. Justice consists in the proper
carrying on of this interchange in its two correlative parts.[29]
[Footnote 29: We may remark that Plato, though he states the
principle of reciprocity very justly, does not state it
completely. He brings out the reciprocity of need and service; he
does not mention the reciprocal liability of injury. Each man can
do hurt to others: each man may receive hurt from others.
Abstinence on the part of each from hurting others, and security
to each that he shall not be hurt by others, are necessities quite
as fundamental as that of production and interchange.
The reciprocal feeling of security, or absence of all fear of
ill-usage from others ([Greek: to\ kath' ê(me/ran a)dee\s kai\
a)nepibou/leuton pro\s a)llê/lous], to use the phrase of
Thucydides iii. 37), is no less essential to social sentiment,
than the reciprocal confidence that each man may obtain from
others a supply of his wants, on condition of supplying theirs.]
We see therefore that Plato contradicts his own fundamental
principle, when he denies the doing of justice to be an onerous
duty, and when he maintains that it is in itself
happiness-giving to the just agent, whether other men account him
just and do justice to him in return--or not. By this latter doctrine
he sets aside that reciprocity of want and service, upon which he had
affirmed the social union to rest. The fathers, whom he blames,
gave advice in full conformity with his own principle of
reciprocity--when they exhorted their sons to the practice of
justice, not as self-inviting, but as an onerous service towards
others, to be requited by corresponding services and goodwill from
others towards them. If (as he urges) such advice operates as an
encouragement to crime, because it admits that the successful
tyrant or impostor, who gets the services of others for nothing,
is better off than the just man who gets them only in exchange for
an onerous equivalent--this inference equally flows from that
proclaimed reciprocity of need and service, which he himself
affirms to be the generating cause of human society. If it be true
(as Plato states) that each individual is full of wants, and
stands in need of the services of others--then it cannot be true,
that payment without receipt, as a systematic practice, is
self-inviting and self-satisfying. That there are temptations for
strong or cunning men to evade obligation and to usurp wrongful
power, is an undeniable fact. We may wish that it were not a fact:
but we gain nothing by denying or ignoring it. The more clearly
the fact is stated, the better; in order that society may take
precaution against such dangers--a task which has always been
found necessary and often difficult. In reviewing the Gorgias,[30]
we found Sokrates declaring, that Archelaus, the energetic and
powerful king of Macedonia, who had usurped the throne by means of
crime and bloodshed, was thoroughly miserable: far more miserable
than he would have been, had he been defeated in his enterprise
and suffered cruel punishment. Such a declaration represents the
genuine sentiment of Sokrates as to what he _himself_ would
feel, and what ought to be (in his conviction) the feeling of
every one, after having perpetrated such nefarious acts. But it
does not represent the feeling of Archelaus himself, nor that of
the large majority of bystanders: both to these latter, and
to himself, Archelaus appears an object of envy and
admiration.[31] And it would be a fatal mistake, if the peculiar
sentiment of Sokrates were accepted as common to others besides,
and as forming a sound presumption to act upon: that is, if, under
the belief that no ambitious man will voluntarily bring upon
himself so much misery, it were supposed that precautions against
his designs were unnecessary. The rational and tutelary purpose of
punishment is, to make the proposition true and obvious to
all--That the wrong-doer will draw upon himself a large preponderance
of mischief by his wrong-doing. But to proclaim the proposition by
voice of herald (which Plato here proposes) as if it were already
an established fact of human nature, independent of all such
precautions--would be only an unhappy delusion.[32]
[Footnote 30: See above, ch. xxiv., vol. ii., pp. 325-29.]
[Footnote 31: Xenophon, Cyropæd. iii. 3, 52-53. Cyrus says:--
[Greek: A)=r' ou)k, ei) me/llousi toiau=tai dia/noiai
e)ggenê/sesthai a)nthrô/pois kai\ e)/mmonoi e)/sesthai, prô=ton
me\n no/mous u(pa/rxai dei= toiou/tous, di' ô(=n _toi=s me\n
a)gathoi=s e)/ntimos kai\ e)leuthe/rios o( bi/os
paraskeuasthê/setai_, toi=s _de\ kakoi=s tapeino/s te kai\
a)lgeino\s_ kai\ a)bi/ôtos o( ai)ô\n e)panakei/setai? E)/peita
de\ didaska/lous, oi)/mai, dei= kai\ a)/rchontas e)pi\ tou/tois
gene/sthai, oi(/tines dei/xousi/ te o)rthô=s kai\ dida/xousi kai\
e)thi/sousi tau=ta dra=|n, e)/st' a)\n e)gge/nêtai au)toi=s, tou\s
me\n _a)gathou\s kai\ eu)kleei=s eu)daimonesta/tous_ tô=|
o)/nti nomi/zein, tou\s de\ _kakou\s kai\ duskleei=s
a)thliôta/tous_ a(pa/ntôn ê(gei=sthai.]
Xenophon here uses language at variance with that of Plato, and
consonant to that of the fathers of families whom Plato censures.
To create habits of just action, and to repress habits of unjust
action, society must meet both the one and the other by a suitable
response. Assuming such conditional reciprocity to be realised,
you may then persuade each agent that the unjust man, whom society
brands with dishonour, is miserable ([Greek: oi( kakoi\
_kai\_ duskleei=s]).]
[Footnote 32: Xenophon, Economic. xiii. 11. Ischomachus there
declares:--
[Greek: Pa/nu ga/r moi dokei=, ô)= Sô/krates, a)thumi/a
e)ggi/gnesthai toi=s a)gathoi=s, o(/tan o(rô=si ta\ me\n e)/rga
di' au)tô=n katapratto/mena, tô=n de\ o(moi/ôn tugcha/nontas
e(autoi=s tou\s mê/te ponei=n mê/te kinduneu/ein e)the/lontas,
o(/tan de/ê|.]--Also xiv. 9-10.]
[Side-note: Characteristic feature of the Platonic
Commonwealth--specialization of services to that function for
which each man is fit--will not apply to one individual
separately.]
The characteristic feature of the Platonic commonwealth is to
specialize the service of each individual in that function for
which he is most fit. It is assumed, that each will render due
service to the rest, and will receive from them due service in
requital. Upon this assumption, Plato pronounces that the
community will be happy.
Let us grant for the present that this conclusion follows from his
premisses. He proceeds forthwith to apply it by analogy to another
and a different case--the case of the individual man. He
presumes complete analogy between the community and an
individual.[33] To a certain extent, the analogy is real: but it
fails on the main point which Plato's inference requires as a
basis. The community, composed of various and differently endowed
members, suffices to itself and its own happiness: "the individual
is not sufficient to himself, but stands in need of much aid from
others"[34]--a grave fact which Plato himself proclaims as the
generating cause and basis of society. Though we should admit,
therefore, that Plato's commonwealth is perfectly
well-constituted, and that a well-constituted commonwealth will be
happy--we cannot from thence infer that an individual, however
well-constituted, will be happy. His happiness depends upon others
as well as upon himself. He may have in him the three different
mental varieties of souls, or three different persons--Reason,
Energy, Appetite--well tempered and adjusted; so as to produce a
full disposition to just behaviour on his part: but constant
injustice on the part of others will nevertheless be effectual in
rendering him miserable. From the happiness of a community, all
composed of just men--you cannot draw any fair inference to that
of one just man in an unjust community.
[Footnote 33: The parallel between the Commonwealth and the
individual is perpetually reproduced in Plato's reasoning.
Republic, ii. pp. 368-369, vii. p. 541 B, ix. pp. 577 C-D, 579 E,
&c.]
[Footnote 34: Plato, Republic, ii. p. 369 B.]
Thus much to show that the parallel between the community and the
individual, which Plato pursues through the larger portion of the
Republic, is fallacious. His affirmation--That the just man is
happy in his justice, _quand même_--in his own mental
perfection, whatever supposition may be made as to the community
among whom he lives--implies that the just man is self-sufficing:
and Plato himself expressly declares that no individual is
self-sufficing. Indeed, no author can set forth more powerfully than
Plato himself in this very dialogue--the uncomfortable and
perilous position of a philosophical individual, when standing
singly as a dissenter among a community with fixed habits and
sentiments--unphilosophical and anti-philosophical. Such a person
(Plato says) is like a man who has fallen into a den of wild
beasts: he may think himself fortunate, if by careful
retirement and absence from public manifestation, he can preserve
himself secure and uncorrupted: but his characteristic and
superior qualities can obtain no manifestation. The philosopher
requires a community suited to his character. Nowhere does any
such community (so Plato says) exist at present.[35]
[Footnote 35: Plato, Repub. vi. pp. 494 E, 496 D, 497 B. [Greek:
ô(/sper ei)s thêri/a a)/nthrôpos e)mpesô/n], &c. Compare also
ix. p. 592 A.]
[Side-note: Plato has not made good his refutation--the
thesis which he impugns is true.]
I cannot think, therefore, that the main thesis which Sokrates
professes to have established, against the difficulties raised by
Glaukon, is either proved or provable. Plato has fallen into
error, partly by exaggerating the parallelism between the
individual man and the commonwealth: partly by attempting to
reason on justice and injustice in abstract isolation, without
regard to the natural consequences of either--while yet those
consequences cannot be really excluded from consideration, when we
come to apply to these terms, predicates either favourable or
unfavourable. That justice, taken along with its ordinary and
natural consequences, tends materially to the happiness of the
just agent--that injustice, looked at in the same manner, tends to
destroy or impair the happiness of the unjust--these are
propositions true and valuable to be inculcated. But this was the
very case embodied in the exhortations of the ordinary moralists
and counsellors, whom Plato intends to refute. He is not satisfied
to hear them praise justice taken along with its natural
consequences: he stands forward to panegyrise justice
abstractedly, and without its natural consequences: nay, even if
followed by consequences the very reverse of those which are
ordinary and natural.[36] He insists that justice is eligible and
pleasing _per se_, self-recommending: that among the three
varieties of _Bona_ (1. That which we choose for itself and
from its own immediate attractions. 2. That which is in itself
indifferent or even painful, but which we choose from regard to
its ulterior consequences. 3. That which we choose on both
grounds, both as immediately attractive and as ultimately
beneficial), it belongs to the last variety: whereas the opponents
whom he impugns referred it to the second.
[Footnote 36: Plato, Republic, ii. p. 367 B. [Greek: ei) ga\r mê\
a)phairê/seis e(kate/rôthen] (_i.e._ both from justice and
from injustice) [Greek: ta\s a)lêthei=s, ta\s de\ pseudei=s
prosthê/seis, ou) to\ di/kaion phê/somen e)painei=n se, a)lla\ to\
dokei=n, ou)de\ to\ a)/dikon ei)=nai pse/gein, a)lla\ to\ dokei=n,
kai\ parakeleu/esthai a)/dikon o)/nta lantha/nein], &c.]
[Side-note: Statement of the real issue between him and his
opponents.]
Here the point at issue between the two sides is expressly set
forth. Both admit that Justice is a Bonum--both of them looking at
the case with reference only to the agent himself. But the
opponents contend, that it is Bonum (with reference to the agent)
only through its secondary effects, and noway Bonum or attractive
in its primary working: being thus analogous to medical treatment
or gymnastic discipline, which men submit to only for the sake of
ulterior benefits. On the contrary, Plato maintained that it is
good both in its primary and secondary effects: good by reason of
the ulterior benefits which it confers, but still better and more
attractive in its direct and primary effect: thus combining the
pleasurable and the useful, like a healthy constitution and
perfect
senses. Both parties agree in recognising justice as a good: but
they differ in respect of the grounds on which, and the mode in
which, it is good.
[Side-note: He himself misrepresents this issue--he
describes his opponents as enemies of justice.]
Such is the issue as here announced by Plato himself: and the
announcement deserves particular notice because the Platonic
Sokrates afterwards, in the course of his argument, widens and
misrepresents the issue: ascribing to his opponents the invidious
post of enemies who defamed justice and recommended injustice,
while he himself undertakes to counterwork the advocates of
injustice, and to preserve justice from unfair calumny[37]--thus
professing to be counsel for Justice _versus_ Injustice. Now
this is not a fair statement of the argument against which
Sokrates is contending. In that argument, justice was admitted to
be a Good, but was declared to be a Good of that sort which is
laborious and irksome to the agent in the primary proceedings
required from him--though highly beneficial and indispensable to
him by reason of its ulterior results: like medicine, gymnastic
discipline, industry,[38] &c. Whether this doctrine be correct
or not, those who hold it cannot be fairly described as
advocates of injustice and enemies of Justice:[39] any more than
they are enemies of medicine, gymnastic discipline, industry,
&c., which they recommend as good and indispensable, on the
same grounds as they recommend justice.
[Footnote 37: Plato, Repub. ii. p. 368 B-C. [Greek: de/doika ga\r
mê\ ou)d' o(/sion ê)=| parageno/menon dikaiosu/nê| kakêgoroume/nê|
a)pagoreu/ein kai\ mê\ boêthei=n, e)/ti e)mpne/onta kai\
duna/menon phthe/ggesthai.]]
[Footnote 38: Plato, Republic, ii. pp. 357-358.]
[Footnote 39: In the lost treatise De Republicâ of Cicero, Philus,
one of the disputants, was introduced as spokesman of the
memorable discourse delivered by Karneades at Rome, said to have
been against Justice, and in favour of Injustice--"patrocinium
injustitiæ". Lælius replied to him, as "_Justitiæ defensor_".
The few fragments preserved do not enable us to appreciate the
line of argument taken by Karneades: but as far as we can judge,
it seems to have been very different from that which is assigned
to Glaukon and Adeimantus in the Platonic Republic. See the
Fragments of the third book De Republicâ in Orelli's edition of
Cicero, pp. 460-467.]
It may suit Plato's purpose, when drawing up an argument which he
intends to refute, to give to it the colour of being a panegyric
upon injustice: but this is no real or necessary part of the
opponent's case. Nevertheless the commentators on Plato bring it
prominently forward. The usual programme affixed to the Republic
is--Plato, the defender of Justice, against Thrasymachus and the
Sophists, advocates and panegyrists of Injustice. How far the real
Thrasymachus may have argued in the slashing and offensive style
described in the first book of the Republic, we have no means of
deciding. But the Sophists are here brought in as assumed
preachers of injustice, without any authority either from Plato or
elsewhere: not to mention the impropriety of treating the Sophists
as one school with common dogmas. Glaukon (as I have already
observed) announces the doctrine against which Sokrates contends,
not as a recent corruption broached by the Sophists, but as the
generally received view of Justice: held by most persons, repeated
by the poets from ancient times downwards, and embodied by fathers
in lessons to their children: Sokrates farther declares the
doctrine which he himself propounds to be propounded for the first
time.[40]
[Footnote 40: Plato, Republic, ii. p. 358 A. [Greek: Ou) toi/nun
dokei= _toi=s polloi=s_, a)lla\ tou= e)pipo/nou ei)/dous],
&c. 358 C-D: [Greek: a)kou/ôn Thrasuma/chou kai\ muri/ôn
a)/llôn. to\n de\ u(pe\r tê=s dikaiosu/nês lo/gon ou)deno/s pô
a)kê/koa ô(s bou/lomai.] 362 E-364: [Greek: le/gousi de/ pou kai\
parakeleu/ontai pate/res te ui(e/si kai\ pa/ntes oi(/ tinôn
kêdo/menoi], &c.--[Greek: tou/tois de\ pa=si toi=s lo/gois
ma/rturas poiêta\s e)pa/gontai] (p. 364 C). Also p. 366 D.]
[Side-note: Farther arguments of Plato in support of his
thesis. Comparison of three different characters of men.]
Over and above the analogy between the just commonwealth and the
just individual, we find two additional and independent arguments,
to confirm the proof of the Platonic thesis, respecting the
happiness of the just man. Plato distributes mankind into three
varieties. 1. He in whom Reason is preponderant--the
philosopher. 2. He in whom Energy or Courage is preponderant--the
lover of dominion and superiority--the ambitious man. 3. He in
whom Appetite is preponderant--the lover of money. Plato considers
the two last as unjust men, contrasting them with the first, who
alone is to be regarded as just.
The language of Plato in arguing this point is vague, and requires
to be distinguished before we can appreciate the extent to which
he has made out his point. At one time, he states his conclusion
to the effect--That the man who pursues and enjoys the pleasures
of ambition or enrichment, but only under the conditions and
limits which reason prescribes, is happier than he who pursues
them without any such controul, and who is the slave of violent
and ungovernable impulses.[41] This is undoubtedly true.
[Footnote 41: Plato, Republic, ix. pp. 586-587.]
But elsewhere Plato puts his thesis in another way. He compares
the pleasures of the philosopher, arising from intellectual
contemplation and the acquisition of knowledge--with the pleasures
of the ambitious man and the money-lover, in compassing their
respective ends, the attainment of power and wealth. If you ask
(says Plato) each of these three persons which is the best and
most pleasurable mode of life, each will commend his own: each
will tell you that the pleasures of his own mode of life are the
greatest, and that those of the other two are comparatively
worthless.[42] But though each thus commends his own, the judgment
of the philosopher is decidedly the most trustworthy of the three.
For the necessities of life constrain the philosopher to have some
experience of the pleasures of the other two, while they two are
altogether ignorant of his: moreover, the comparative estimate
must be made by reason and intelligent discussion, which is his
exclusive prerogative. Therefore, the philosopher is to be taken
as the best judge, when he affirms that his pleasures are the
greatest, in preference to the other two.[43] To establish this
same conclusion, Plato even goes a step farther. No pleasures,
except those peculiar to the philosopher, are perfectly true and
genuine, pure from any alloy or mixture of pain. The
pleasures of the ambitious man, and of the money-lover, are
untrue, spurious, alloyed with pain and for the most part mere
riddances from pain--appearing falsely to be pleasures by contrast
with the antecedent pains to which they are consequent. The
pleasures of the philosophic life are not preceded by any pains.
They are mental pleasures, having in them closer affinity with
truth and reality than the corporeal: the matter of knowledge,
with which the philosophising mind is filled and satisfied, comes
from the everlasting and unchangeable Ideas and is thus more akin
to true essence and reality, than the perishable substances which
relieve bodily hunger and thirst.[44]
[Footnote 42: Plato, Republic, ix. p. 581 C-D.]
[Footnote 43: Plato, Republic, ix. pp. 582-583.]
[Footnote 44: Plato, Republic, ix. pp. 585-586.]
[Side-note: His arguments do not go to the point which he
professes to aim at.]
It is by these two lines of reasoning, and especially by the last,
that Plato intends to confirm and place beyond dispute the triumph
of the just man over the unjust.[45] He professes to have
satisfied the requirement of Glaukon, by proving that the just man
is happy by reason of his justice--_quand même_--however he
may be esteemed or dealt with either by Gods or men. But even if
we grant the truth of his premisses, no such conclusion can be
elicited from them. He appears to be successful only because he
changes the terminology, and the state of the question. Assume it
to be true, that the philosopher, whose pleasures are derived
chiefly from the love of knowledge and of intellectual
acquisitions, has a better chance of happiness than the ambitious
or the money-loving man. This I believe to be true in the main,
subject to many interfering causes--though the manner in which
Plato here makes it out is much less satisfactory than the
handling of the same point by Aristotle after him.[46] But when
the point is granted, nothing is proved about the just and the
unjust man, except in a sense of those terms peculiar to Plato
himself.
[Footnote 45: Plato, Republic, ix. p. 583 B. [Greek: Tau=ta me\n
toi/nun ou)/tô du/' e)phexê=s a)\n ei)/ê kai\ di\s nenikêkô\s o(
di/kaios to\n a)/dikon; to\ de\ tri/ton . . . tou=t' a)\n ei)/ê
me/gisto/n te kai\ kuriô/taton tô=n ptôma/tôn.]]
[Footnote 46: Aristot. Ethic. Nikom. i. 5, p. 1095 b, 1096 a, x.
6-9, pp. 1176-1179.]
Nor indeed is Plato's conclusion proved, even in his own sense of
the words. He identifies the just man with the philosopher or man
of reason--the unjust man with the pursuer of power or wealth.
Now, even in this Platonic meaning, the just man or
philosopher cannot be called happy _quand même_: he
requires, as one condition of his happiness, a certain amount of
service, forbearance, and estimation, on the part of his fellows.
He is not completely self-sufficing, nor can any human being be
so.
[Side-note: Exaggerated parallelism between the Commonwealth
and the individual man.]
The confusion, into which Plato has here fallen, arises mainly
from his exaggerated application of the analogy between the
Commonwealth and the Individual: from his anxiety to find in the
individual something like what he notes as justice in the
Commonwealth: from his assimilating the mental attributes of each
individual, divisible only in logical abstraction,--to the really
distinct individual citizens whose association forms the
Commonwealth.[47] It is only by a poetical or rhetorical metaphor
that you can speak of the several departments of a man's mind, as
if they were distinct persons, capable of behaving well or ill
towards each other. A single man, considered without any reference
to others, cannot be either just or unjust. "The just man"
(observes Aristotle, in another line of argument), "requires
others, towards whom and with whom he may behave justly."[48] Even
when we talk by metaphor of a man being just towards himself,
reference to others is always implied, as a standard with which
comparison is taken.
[Footnote 47: Plato, Republic, i. pp. 351 C, 352 C. [Greek: ou)
ga\r a)\n a)pei/chonto a)llê/lôn komidê=| o)/ntes a)/dikoi, a)lla\
dê=lon o(/ti e)nê=n tis au)toi=s dikaiosu/nê, ê(\ au)tou\s
e)poi/ei mê/ toi kai\ a)llê/lous ge kai\ e)ph' ou(\s ê)/|esan
a(/ma a)dikei=n, di' ê(\n e)/praxan a(\ e)/praxan, ô(/rmêsan de\
e)pi\ ta\ a)/dika a)diki/a| ê(mimo/chthêroi o)/ntes], &c.
We find the same sentiment in the Opera et Dies of Hesiod, 275,
contrasting human society with animal life:--
[Greek: i)/chthusi me\n kai\ thêrsi\ kai\ oi)ônoi=s peteê/nois
e)/sthein a)llê/lous, e)pei\ ou) di/kê e)sti\n e)n au)toi=s;
a)nthrô/poisi d' e)/dôke (Zeu\s) di/kên, ê(\ pollo\n a)ri/stê
gi/netai.]]
[Footnote 48: Aristotel. Ethic. Nikomach. x. 7. [Greek: o(
di/kaios dei=tai pro\s ou(\s dikaiopragê/sei, kai\ meth' ô(=n.]]
[Side-note: Second Argument of Plato to prove the happiness
of the just man--He now recalls his previous concession, and
assumes that the just man will receive just treatment and esteem
from others.]
In the main purpose of the Republic, therefore--to prove that the
just man is happy in his justice, and the unjust miserable in his
injustice, whatever supposition may be made as to consequent
esteem or treatment from Gods or men--we cannot pronounce Plato to
have succeeded. He himself indeed speaks with triumphant
confidence of his own demonstration. Yet we find him at the close
of the dialogue admitting that he had undertaken the defence of a
position unnecessarily difficult. "I conceded to you" (he
says) "for argument's sake that the just man should be accounted
unjust, by Gods as well as men, and that the unjust man should be
accounted just. But this is a concession which I am not called
upon to make; for the real fact will be otherwise. I now compare
the happiness of each, assuming that each has the reputation and
the treatment which he merits from others. Under this supposition,
the superior happiness of the just man over the unjust, is still
more manifest and undeniable."[49]
[Footnote 49: Plato, Republic, x. pp. 612-613.]
Plato then proceeds to argue the case upon this hypothesis, which
he affirms to be conformable to the reality. The just man will be
well-esteemed and well-treated by men: he will also be favoured
and protected by the Gods, both in this life and after this life.
The unjust man, on the contrary, will be ill-esteemed and
ill-treated by men: he will farther be disapproved and punished by
the Gods, both while he lives and after his death. Perhaps for a time
the just man may seem to be hardly dealt with and miserable the
unjust man to be prosperous and popular but in the end, all this
will be reversed.[50]
[Footnote 50: Plato, Republic, x. p. 613.]
The second line of argument is essentially different from the
first. Plato dispatches it very succinctly, in two pages: while in
trying to prove the first, and in working out the very peculiar
comparison on which his proof rests, he had occupied the larger
portion of this very long treatise.
In the first line of argument, justice was recommended as
implicated with happiness _per se_ or absolutely--_quand
même_--to the agent: injustice was discouraged, as implicated
with misery. In the second line, justice is recommended by reason
of its happy ulterior consequences to the agent: injustice is
dissuaded on corresponding grounds, by reason of its miserable
ulterior consequences to the agent.
It will be recollected that this second line of argument is the
same as that which Glaukon described as adopted by parents and by
other monitors, in discourse with pupils. Plato therefore here
admits that their exhortations were founded on solid grounds;
though he blames them for denying or omitting the
announcement, that just behaviour conferred happiness upon
the agent by its own efficacy, apart from all consequences. He
regards the happiness attained by the just man, through the
consequent treatment by men and Gods, as real indeed,--but as only
supplemental and secondary, inferior in value to the happiness
involved in the just behaviour _per se_.
In this part of the argument, too, as well as in the former, we
are forced to lament the equivocal meaning of the word
_justice_: and to recollect the observation of Plato at the
close of the first book, that those who do not know what justice
is, can never determine what is to be truly predicated of it, and
what is not.[51] If by the just man he means the philosopher, and
by the unjust man the person who is not a philosopher,--he has
himself told us before, that in societies as actually constituted,
the philosopher enjoys the minimum of social advantages, and is
even condemned to a life of insecurity; while the unphilosophical
men (at least a certain variety of them) obtain sympathy, esteem,
and promotion.[52]
[Footnote 51: Plato, Republic, i. p. 354 B.]
[Footnote 52: Plato, Republic, vi. pp. 492-494-495-497.]
Now in this second line of argument, Plato holds a totally
different language respecting the way in which the just man is
treated by society. He even exaggerates, beyond what can be
reasonably expected, the rewards accruing to the just man: who
(Plato tells us), when he has become advanced in life and
thoroughly known, acquires command in his own city if he chooses
it, and has his choice among the citizens for the best matrimonial
alliances: while the unjust man ends in failure and ignominy,
incurring the hatred of every one and suffering punishment.[53]
This is noway consistent with Plato's previous description of the
position of the philosopher in actual society: yet nevertheless
his argument identifies the just man with the philosopher.
[Footnote 53: Plato, Republic, x. p. 613 D-E.]
[Side-note: Dependence of the happiness of the individual on
the society in which he is placed.]
Plato appears so anxious to make out a triumphant case in favour
of justice and against injustice, that he forgets not only the
reality of things, but the main drift of his own previous
reasonings. Nothing can stand out more strikingly, throughout this
long and eloquent treatise, than the difference between one
society and another: the necessary dependence of every one's lot,
partly indeed upon his own character, but also most
materially upon the society to which he belongs: the impossibility
of affirming any thing generally respecting the result of such and
such dispositions in the individual, until you know the society of
which he is a member, as well as his place therein. Hence arises
the motive for Plato's own elaborate construction--a new society
upon philosophical principles. This essentially relative point of
view pervades the greater part of his premisses, and constitutes
the most valuable part of them.
Whether the commonwealth as a whole, assuming it to be once
erected, would work as he expects, we will not here enquire. But
it is certain that the commonwealth and the individuals are
essential correlates of each other; and that the condition of each
individual must be criticised in reference to the commonwealth in
which he is embraced. Take any member of the Platonic
Commonwealth, and place him in any other form of government, at
Athens, Syracuse, Sparta, &c.--immediately his condition, both
active and passive, is changed. Thus the philosophers, for whom
Plato assumes unqualified ascendancy as the cardinal principle in
his system, become, when transferred to other systems, divested of
influence, hated by the people, and thankful if they can obtain
even security. "The philosopher (says Plato) must have a community
suited to him and docile to his guidance: in communities such as
now exist, he not only has no influence as philosopher, but
generally becomes himself corrupted by the contagion and pressure
of opinions around him: this is the natural course of events, and
it would be wonderful if the fact were otherwise."[54]
[Footnote 54: Plato, Republic, vi. pp. 487-488-489 B, 497 B-C. 492
C: [Greek: kai\ phê/sein ta\ au)ta\ tou/tois kala\ kai\ ai)schra\
ei)=nai, kai\ e)pitêdeu/sein a(/per a)\n ou(=toi, kai\ e)/sesthai
toiou=ton?] Compare also ix. pp. 592 A, 494 A: [Greek: tou\s
philosophou=ntas a)/ra a)na/gkê pse/gesthai u(p' au)tô=n (tou=
plê/thous).] And vii. p. 517 A.]
[Side-note: Inconsistency of affirming general positions
respecting the happiness of the just man, in all societies without
distinction.]
After thus forcibly insisting upon the necessary correlation
between the individual and the society, as well as upon the
variability and uncertainty of justice and injustice in different
existing societies[55]--Plato is inconsistent with himself in
affirming, as an universal position, that the just man receives
the favour and good treatment of society, the unjust man, hatred
and punishment.[56] You cannot decide this until you know in
what society the just man is placed. In order to make him
comfortable, Plato is obliged to construct an imaginary society
suited to him: which would have been unnecessary, if you can
affirm that he is sure to be well treated in every society.
[Footnote 55: Plato, Republic, v. p. 479, vi. p. 493 C.]
[Footnote 56: Plato, Republic, x. p. 613.]
[Side-note: Qualified sense in which only this can be done.]
There is a sense indeed (different from what Plato intended), in
which the proposition is both true, and consistent with his own
doctrine about the correlation between the individual and the
society. When Plato speaks of the just or the unjust man, to whose
judgment does he make appeal? To his own judgment? or to which of
the numerous other dissentient judgments? For that there were
numerous dissentient opinions on this point, Plato himself
testifies: a person regarded as just or unjust in one community,
would not be so regarded in another. All this ethical and
intellectual discord is fully recognised as a fact, by Plato
himself: who moreover keenly felt it, when comparing his own
judgment with that of the Athenians his countrymen. Such being the
ambiguity of the terms, we can affirm nothing respecting the just
or the unjust man absolutely and generally--respecting justice or
injustice in the abstract: We cannot affirm any thing respecting
the happiness or misery of either, except with reference to the
sentiments of the community wherein each is placed. Assuming their
sentiments to be known, we may pronounce that any individual
citizen who is unjust _relatively to them_ (_i.e._, who
behaves in a manner which they account unjust), will be punished
by their superior force, and rendered miserable: while any one who
abstains from such behaviour, and conducts himself in a manner
which they account just, will receive from them just dealing, with
a certain measure of trust, and esteem: Taken in this relative
sense, we may truly say of the unjust man, that he will be
unhappy; because displeasure, hatred, and punitory infliction from
his countrymen will be quite sufficient to make him so, without
any other causes of unhappiness. Respecting the just man, we can
only say that he will be happy, so far as exemption from this
cause of misery is concerned: but we cannot make sure that he
will be happy on the whole, because happiness is a product to
which many different conditions, positive and negative, must
concur--while the serious causes of misery are efficacious, each
taken singly, in producing their result.
[Side-note: Question--Whether the just man is orthodox or
dissenter in his society?--important in discussing whether he is
happy.]
Moreover, in estimating the probable happiness either of the just
(especially taking this word _sensu Platonico_ as equivalent
to _the philosophers_) or the unjust, another element must be
included: which an illustrious self-thinking reasoner like Plato
ought not to have omitted. Does the internal reason and sentiment
of the agent coincide with that of his countrymen, as to what is
just and unjust? Is he essentially homogeneous with his countrymen
(to use the language of Plato in the Gorgias[57]), a chip of the
same block? Or has he the earnest conviction that the commandments
and prohibitions which they enforce upon him, on the plea of
preventing injustice, are themselves unjust? Is he (like the
philosopher described by Plato among societies actually
constituted, or like Sokrates at Athens[58]) a conscientious
dissenter from the orthodox creed--political, ethical, or
æsthetical--received among his fellow-citizens generally? Does he
(like Sokrates) believe himself to be inculcating useful and
excellent lessons, while his countrymen blame and silence him as a
corruptor of youth, and as a libeller of the elders?[59] Does he,
in those actions which he performs either under legal restraint or
under peremptory unofficial custom, submit merely to what he
regards as _civium ardor prava jubentium_, or as _vultus
instantis tyranni_?
[Footnote 57: Plato, Gorgias, p. 513 B. [Greek: au)tophuô=s
o(/moios tê=| politei/a|], &c.]
[Footnote 58: Plato, Republic, vi. pp. 496-497. Plato, Gorgias, p.
521 D.]
[Footnote 59: Plato, Gorgias, p. 522 B. [Greek: e)a/n te/ ti/s me
ê)\ neôte/rous phê=| diaphthei/rein a)porei=n poiou=nta, ê)\ tou\s
presbute/rous kakêgorei=n le/gonta pikrou\s lo/gous ê)\ i)di/a|
ê)\ dêmosi/a|, ou)/te to\ a)lêthe\s e(/xô ei)pei=n, o(/ti Dikai/ôs
pa/nta tau=ta e)gô\ le/gô kai\ pra/ttô to\ u(me/teron dê\ tou=to,
ô)= a)/ndres dikastai/, ou)/te a)/llo ou)de/n; ô(/ste i)/sôs, o(/,
ti a)\n tu/chô, tou=to pei/somai.]]
[Side-note: Comparison of the position of Sokrates at
Athens, with that of his accusers.]
This is a question essentially necessary to be answered, when we
are called upon to affirm the general principle--"That the just
man is happy, and that the unjust man is unhappy". Antipathy and
ill-treatment will be the lot of any citizen who challenges
opinions which his society cherish as consecrated, or professes
such as they dislike. Such was the fate of Sokrates himself
at Athens. He was indicted as unjust and criminal ([Greek:
A)dikei= Sôkra/tês]), while his accusers, Anytus and Melêtus,
carried away the esteem and sympathy of their fellow-citizens
generally, as not simply just men, but zealous champions of
justice--as resisting the assailants of morality and religion, of
the political constitution, and of parental authority. How
vehement was the odium and reprobation which Sokrates incurred
from the majority of his fellow-citizens, we are assured by his
own Apology[60] before the Dikasts. Now it is to every one a
serious and powerful cause of unhappiness, to feel himself the
object of such a sentiment. Most men dread it so much, like the
Platonic Euthyphron, that they refrain from uttering, or at least
are most reserved in communicating, opinions which are accounted
heretical among their countrymen or companions.[61] The resolute
and free-spoken Sokrates braved that odium; which, aggravated by
particular circumstances, as well as by the character of his own
defence, attained at last such a height as to bring about his
condemnation to death. That he was sustained in this unthankful
task by native force of character, conscientious persuasion, and
belief in the approbation of the Gods--is a fact which we should
believe, even if he himself had not expressly told us so. But to
call him _happy_, would be a misapplication of the term,
which no one would agree with Plato in making--least of all the
friends of Sokrates in the last months of his life. Besides, if we
are to call Sokrates happy on these grounds, his accusers would be
still happier: for they had the same conscientious conviction, and
the same belief in the approbation of the Gods: while they enjoyed
besides the sympathy of their country men as champions of religion
and morality.
[Footnote 60: Plato, Apolog. Sokr. pp. 28 A. 37 D.
[Greek: pollê/ moi a)pechthei/a ge/gone kai\ pro\s pollou/s],
&c.]
[Footnote 61: Plato, Euthyphron, p. 3 C-D. [Greek: A)thênai/ois
ga/r toi ou) spho/dra me/lei, a)/n tina deino\n oi)/ôntai ei)=nai,
mê\ me/ntoi didaskaliko\n tê=s au(tou= sophi/as; o(\n d' a)\n kai\
a)/llous oi)/ôntai poiei=n toiou/tous, thumou=ntai, ei)/t' ou)=n
phtho/nô|, ei)/te di' a)/llo ti.]
_Euthyphr._ [Greek: Tou/tou me\n pe/ri o(/pôs pote\ pro\s
e)me\ e)/chousin, ou) pa/nu e)pithumô= peirathê=nai.]
_Sokrat._ [Greek: I)/sôs ga\r su\ me\n dokei=s spa/nion
seauto\n pare/chein, kai\ dida/skein ou)k e)the/lein tê\n seautou=
sophi/an], &c.]
[Side-note: Imperfect ethical basis on which Plato has
conducted the discussion in the Republic.]
In spite of all the charm and eloquence, therefore, which abounds
in the Republic, we are compelled to declare that the Platonic
Sokrates has not furnished the solution required from him by
Glaukon and Adeimantus: and that neither the first point (ix.
p. 580 D) nor the second point of his conclusion (x. p. 613) is
adequately made out. The very grave ethical problem, respecting
the connexion between individual just behaviour and individual
happiness, is discussed in a manner too exclusively
self-regarding, and inconsistent with that reciprocity which Plato
himself sets forth as the fundamental, generating, sustaining,
principle of human society. If that principle of reciprocity is to
be taken as the starting-point, you cannot discuss the behaviour
of any individual towards society, considered in reference to his
own happiness, without at the same time including the behaviour of
society towards him. Now Plato, in the conditions that he
expressly prescribes for the discussion,[62] insists on keeping
the two apart; and on establishing a positive conclusion about the
first, without at all including the second. He rejects
peremptorily the doctrine--"That just behaviour is performed for
the good of others, apart from the agent". Yet if society be, in
the last analysis (as Plato says that it is), an exchange of
services, rendered indispensable by the need which every one has
of others--the services which each man renders are rendered _for
the good of others_, as the services which they render to him
are rendered _for his good_. The just dealing of each man is,
in the first instance, beneficial to others: in its secondary
results, it is for the most part beneficial to himself.[63] His
unjust dealing, in like manner, is, in the first instance,
injurious to others: in its secondary results, it is for the most
part injurious to himself. Particular acts of injustice may, under
certain circumstances, be not injurious, nay even beneficial, to
the unjust agent: but they are certain to be hurtful to
others: were it not so, they would not deserve to be branded as
injustice. I am required to pay a debt, for the benefit of my
creditor, and for the maintenance of a feeling of security among
other creditors though the payment may impose upon myself severe
privation: indirectly, indeed, I am benefited, because the same
law which compels me, compels others also to perform their
contracts towards me. The law (to use a phrase of Aristotle)
guarantees just dealing by and towards each.[64] The Platonic
Thrasymachus, therefore, is right in so far as he affirms--That
injustice is _Malum Alienum_, and justice _Bonum
Alienum_,[65] meaning that such is the direct and primary
characteristic of each. The unjust man is one who does wrong to
others, or omits to render to others a service which they have a
right to exact, with a view to some undue profit or escape of
inconvenience for himself: the just man is one who abstains from
wrong to others, and renders to others the full service which they
have a right to require, whatever hardship it may impose upon
himself. A man is called just or unjust, according to his conduct
towards others.
[Footnote 62: Plato, Republic, ii. p. 367.]
[Footnote 63: See the instructive chapter on the Moral Sense, in
Mr. James Mill's Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind, ch.
xxiii. vol. ii. p. 280.
"The actions from which men derive advantage have all been classed
under four titles--Prudence, Fortitude, Justice, Beneficence. . .
When those names are applied to our own acts, the first two,
Prudent and Brave, express acts which are useful _to
ourselves_, in the first instance: the latter two, Just and
Beneficent, express acts which are useful _to others_, in the
first instance. . . It is further to be remarked, that those acts
of ours which are primarily useful to ourselves, are secondarily
useful to others; and those which are primarily useful to others,
are secondarily useful to ourselves. Thus, it is by our own
prudence and fortitude that we are best enabled to do acts of
justice and beneficence to others. And it is by acts of justice
and beneficence to others, that we best dispose them to do similar
acts to us."]
[Footnote 64: Aristot. Polit. iii. 9, 1280, b. 10, [Greek: o(
no/mos sunthê/kê, kai\ katha/per e)/phê Luko/phrôn o( sophistê/s,
e)gguêtê\s a)llê/lois tô=n dikai/ôn.] Chrysippus also, writing
against Plato, maintained that [Greek: a)diki/a] was essentially
[Greek: pro\s e(/teron, ou) pro\s e(auto/n] (Plutarch, Stoic.
Repugnant. c. 16, p. 1041 D).]
[Footnote 65: Plato, Republic, ii. p. 367 C. [Greek: kai\
o(mologei=n Thrasuma/chô| o(/ti to\ me\n di/kaion, a)llo/trion
a)gatho/n, xumphe/ron tou= krei/ttonos; to\ de\ a)/dikon, au)tô=|
me\n xumphe/ron kai\ lusitelou=n, tô=| de\ ê(/ttoni,
a)xu/mphoron.]]
[Side-note: Plato in Republic is preacher, inculcating
useful beliefs--not philosopher, establishing scientific theory.
State of Just and Unjust Man in the Platonic Commonwealth.]
In considering the main thesis of the Republic, we must look upon
Plato as preacher--inculcating a belief which he thinks useful to
be diffused; rather than as philosopher, announcing general truths
of human nature, and laying down a consistent, scientific, theory
of Ethics. There are occasions on which even he himself seems to
accept this character. "If the fable of Kadmus and the dragon's
teeth" (he maintains) "with a great many other stories equally
improbable, can be made matters of established faith, surely a
doctrine so plausible as mine, about justice and injustice, can be
easily taught and accredited."[66] To ensure unanimous
acquiescence, Plato would constrain all poets to proclaim and
illustrate his thesis--and would prohibit them from uttering
anything inconsistent with it.[67] But these or similar official
prohibitions may be employed for the upholding of any creed,
whatever it be: and have been always employed, more or less, in
every society, for the upholding of the prevalent creed. Even in
the best society conceivable under the conditions of human life,
assuming an ideal commonwealth in which the sentiments of
_just_ and _unjust_ have received the most systematic,
beneficent, and rational embodiments, and have become engraven on
all the leading minds--even then Plato's first assertion--That the
just man is happy _quand même_--could not be admitted without
numerous reserves and qualifications. Justice must still be done
by each agent, not as a self-inviting process, but as an
obligation entailing more or less of sacrifice made by him to the
security and comfort of others. Plato's second assertion--That the
unjust man is miserable--would be more near the truth; because the
ideal commonwealth is assumed to be one in which the governing
body has both the disposition and the power to punish
injustice--and the discriminating equanimity, or absence of
antipathies, which secures them against punishing anything else.
The power of society to inflict misery is far more extensive than
its power of imparting happiness. But even thus, we have to recollect
that the misery of the unjust person arises not from his in justice
_per se_, but from consequent treatment at the hands of others.
[Footnote 66: See Plato, Legg. ii. pp. 663-664.
Good and simple people, in the earlier times (says Plato) believed
every thing that was told them. They were more virtuous and just
then than they are now (Legg. iii. p. 679 C-E).]
[Footnote 67: Plato, Legg. ii. pp. 661-662. Illustrated in the
rigid and detailed censorship which he imposes on the poets in the
Republic, in the second and third books.
In the Legg., however, Plato puts his thesis in a manner less
untenable than in the Republic:--"Neither to do wrong to others,
nor to suffer wrong from others; this is the happiest condition"
(Legg. ii. p. 663 A). This is a very different proposition from
that which is defended in the Republic; where we are called upon
to believe, that the man who acts justly will be happy, whatever
may be the conduct of others towards him.
Epikurus laid down, as one of the doctrines in his [Greek: Ku/riai
Do/xai] (see Diog. Laert. x. 150): [Greek: To\ tê=s phu/seôs
di/kaion e)sti\ su/mbolon tou= sumphe/rontos, ei)s to\ mê\
bla/ptein a)llê/lous mêde\ bla/ptesthai. O(/sa tô=n zô/|ôn mê\
ê)du/nato sunthê/kas poiei=sthai ta\s u(pe\r tou= mê\ bla/ptein
a)/llêla mêde\ bla/ptesthai, pro\s tau=ta ou)the/n e)stin ou)de\
di/kaion ou)/de\ a)/dikon. Ô(sau/tôs de\ kai\ tô=n e)thnô=n o(/sa
mê\ ê)du/nato, ê)\ mê\ e)bou/leto, ta\s sunthê/kas poiei=sthai
ta\s u(pe\r tou= mê\ bla/ptein a)llê/lous mêde\ bla/ptesthai],
&c.
Lucretius expresses the same--v. 1020:--
"Tunc et amicitiam coeperunt jungere aventes
"Finitimi inter se nec _lædere nec violari_," &c.]
[Side-note: Comparative happiness of the two in actual
communities. Plato is dissatisfied with it--This is his motive for
recasting society on his own principles.]
Thus much for the Platonic or ideal commonwealth. But when we pass
from that hypothesis into the actual world, the case becomes far
stronger against the truth of both Plato's assertions. Of
actual societies, even the best have many imperfections--the less
good, many attributes worse than imperfections:--"_ob virtutes
certissimum exitium_". The dissenter for the better, is liable
to be crucified alongside of the dissenter for the worse: King
Nomos will tolerate neither.
[Side-note: Confusion between the preacher and the
philosopher in the Platonic Republic.]
Plato as a preacher holds one language: as a philosopher and
analyst, another. When he is exhorting youth to justice, or
dissuading them from injustice, he thinks himself entitled to
depict the lot of the just man in the most fascinating colours,
that of the unjust man as the darkest contrast against
it,--without any careful observance of the line between truth and
fiction: the fiction, if such there be, becomes in his eyes a
_pia fraus_, excused or even ennobled by its salutary
tendency. But when he drops this practical purpose, and comes to
philosophise on the principles of society, he then proclaims
explicitly how great is the difference between society as it now
stands, and society as it ought to be: how much worse is the
condition of the just, how much less bad that of the unjust (in
every sense of the words, but especially in the Platonic sense)
than a perfect commonwealth would provide. Between the
exhortations of Plato the preacher, and the social analysis of
Plato the philosopher, there is a practical contradiction, which
is all the more inconvenient because he passes backwards and
forwards almost unconsciously, from one character to the other.
The splendid treatise called the Republic is composed of both, in
portions not easy to separate.
[Side-note: Remarks on the contrast between ethical theory
and ethical precepts.]
The difference between the two functions just mentioned--the
preceptor, and the theorizing philosopher--deserves careful
attention, especially in regard to Ethics. If I lay down a theory
of social philosophy, I am bound to take in all the conditions and
circumstances of the problem: to consider the whole position of
each individual in society, as an agent affecting the security and
comfort of others, and also as a person acted on by others, and
having his security and comfort affected by their behaviour: as
subject to obligations or duties, in the first of the two
characters--and as enjoying rights (_i.e._, having
others under obligation to him) in the second. This reciprocity of
service and need--of obligation and right--is the basis of social
theory: its two parts are in indivisible correlation: alike
integrant and co-essential. But when a preceptor delivers
exhortations on conduct, it is not necessary that he should insist
equally on each of the two parts. As a general fact of human
nature, it is known that men are disposed _proprio motu_ to
claim their rights, but not so constantly or equally disposed to
perform their obligations: accordingly, the preceptor insists upon
this second part of the case, which requires extraneous support
and enforcement--leaving untouched the first part, which requires
none. But the very reason why the second part needs such support,
is, because the performance of the obligation is seldom
self-inviting, and often the very reverse: that is, because the
Platonic doctrine misrepresents the reality. The preceptor ought
not to indulge in such misrepresentation: he may lay stress
especially upon one part of the entire social theory, but he ought
not to employ fictions which deny the necessary correlation of the
other omitted part. Many preceptors have insisted on the
performance of obligation, in language which seemed to imply that
they considered a man to exist only for the performance of
obligation, and to have no rights at all. Plato in another way
undermines equally the integrity of the social theory, when he
contends, that the performance of obligations alone, without any
rights, is delightful _per se_, and suffices to ensure
happiness to the performer. Herein we can recognise only a
well-intentioned preceptor, narrowing and perverting the social
theory for the purpose of edification to his hearers.