Justice and the Soul in Plato's Republic

In his philosophy, Plato places a large emphasis on the importance of the idea of justice. This emphasis can be seen especially in his work ‘The Republic’ where, through his main character Socrates, he attempts to define the nature of justice and to justify this definition. One of the methods used by Socrates to strengthen or rather explain his argument on justice is through his famous city-soul analogy, where a comparison between a just city and a just soul/individual is made. Through this analogy, Socrates attempts to explain the nature of justice, how it is the virtue of the soul and is therefore intrinsically valuable to the

In this paper I will be discussing the tripartite (three parts) of the soul that Socrates discussed in chapter 6 of Plato’s Republic, and I will compare and contrast them to that of Aristotle and Anthony Kenny. In Plato’s Republic the three parts of the soul consist of the rational, spirited and, desire. In this dialogue the three parts of the soul go hand and hand with three parts of a just society.

According to Socrates one of the most important things that identify with human being is their desire. Socrates argues that desire that can change people minds quickly and very abnormally. The three-part division of the soul is crucial to Plato’s overall project of offering the same sort of explication of justice whether applied to societies or individuals.

Plato’s Republic introduces a multitude of important and interesting concepts, of topics ranging from music, to gender equality, to political regime. For this reason, many philosophers and scholars still look back to The Republic in spite of its age. Yet one part that stands out in particular is Plato’s discussion of the soul in the fourth book of the Republic. Not only is this section interesting, but it was also extremely important for all proceeding moral philosophy, as Plato’s definition has been used ever since as a standard since then. Plato’s confabulation on the soul contains three main portions: defining each of the three parts and explanation of their functions, description of the interaction of the parts, and then how the the

In response to Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus, Socrates seeks to show that it is always in an individual’s interest to be just, rather than unjust. Thus, one of the most critical problems regarding the Republic is whether Socrates defends justice successfully or not. Socrates offers three arguments in favor of the just life over the unjust life: first, the just man is wise and good, and the unjust man is ignorant and bad; second, injustice produces internal disharmony which prevents effective actions; and lastly, virtue is excellence at a thing’s function and the just person lives a happier life than the unjust person, since he performs the various functions of the human soul well. Socrates is displeased with the argument because a sufficient explanation of justice is essential before reaching a conclusion as to whether or not the just life is better than the unjust life. He is asked to support justice for itself, not for the status that follows. He propositions to look for justice in the city first and then to continue by analogy to discover justice in the individual. This approach will allow for a distinct judgment on the question of whether the just person is happier than the unjust person. Socrates commences by exploring the roots of political life and constructs a hypothetical just city that gratifies only fundamental human necessities. Socrates argues

In Plato’s Republic, Book IV, Socrates discusses the ability of using two parts of a soul to interact in contradicting behavior towards the same object. He defines this as an interpretation that creates two distinct parts of the human soul: 1) the ration part of reason, and 2) the non-rational part of appetite. These two opposing parts are meant to provide insight on what defines a just person, in that when a person is able to apply the parts of the soul in union, it implies that the parts of the soul are properly working as a unit and not demeaning one another. Socrates goes on to suggest a third part of the soul, the part of spirit, and suggests that “provided it hasn’t been corrupted by a bad upbringing” (441a), it feeds that rational part of the soul. Socrates draws on the concept that when a soul is acting in unison, it is properly functioning and is therefore just, a concept that he states is analogous to the idea that a properly functioning body is therefore healthy.

He concludes that justice is the harmony between the three different parts of the soul. He explained that only when our reason, spirit, and desire are working together we could act justly. He also referred to justice as the health of our soul, “just and injustice actions are not different for the soul than healthy and unhealthy things are for the body” (444c). Socrates creates this analogy in hope to persuade Glaucon, who serves as the devils advocate, that living justly is more profitable. He explained that injustice is like a disease that affects the soul and justice is the healthy condition of our soul.

Socrates argues many concepts throughout Plato’s Republic. The author includes his late mentor as the main subject to continue Socrates’ legacy after the philosopher’s execution. What begins as simple banter between well-educated men turns into a bitter debate, as all sides desperately desire to uncover the definition of justice. In his search for the explanation, Socrates makes the claim that, “just people also live better and are happier than unjust ones” (352d). While his point appears valid and seems to prove it is best to act honorably and follow the “set of rules made by everyone for mutual advantage”, his use of equivocal language deems his argument inductive, failing to completely prove its point.

Socrates believes that the soul is not always for what is good. This is when the complexities of moral psychology become an important issue. That is found in Plato's mature moral theory.

As well as Socrates’s version of justice, we also gain a deeper understanding of the typical sophist view on justice.

In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.

By using Plato’s description of a just and unjust soul, we can measure the just and fairness of a society. If the citizens of a community are after materialistic things and the social forces are not leading its people in seeking the truth, it can be assumed that society is unjust. However, if a society is able to promote its people to strive and work hard to seek the truth, then it can be assumed that society is just. Therefore, Plato tripartite soul can be used as a measuring tool to determine if a society is just or not.

It would have been logical for Socrates to start by arguing that the human soul is broken into three distinct entities and discussed how if any of them went out of line it could cause the individual to not function, but this does not effectively demonstrate the impact which being unjust could have on a community. This would have been reasonable given that the men were discussing justice on the individual scale. However, while it may not be logical for the reasons given, defining justice in the context of a community makes the most sense as it enables Socrates to strengthen his argument of being just benefits all. If the entire city would be brought to ruin by people being unjust, then it is easy to see why it would be to the advantage to everyone to be just. If the city crumbles, so do the lives of its inhabitants, the effects of this would be devastating as the city could no longer support itself. Supplies would run short and the result would be an anarchy and a struggle for survival among the inhabitants. Had Socrates defined justice only in the individual, this idea would not be

Another objection, brought about by a radical and different theory of Justice is brought up by Plato in a conversation between Socrates and Thrasymachus. In this argument Thrasymachus defines justice as in the interest of the stronger. This basically means that justice belongs in the hands of the rulers, and that the rulers are whoever is stronger, therefore getting to a ruling position. Laws are then made, based on the ruling party’s interest, and only theirs. Those who violate such created laws, will get punished for breaking the law and so on and so forth. Socrates completely disagrees with this theory of justice and gives the analogy of a physician who is studying and exercising his power is in fact doing so in the interest of his patients, not himself. In

According to Thrasymachus’ argument, rulers make laws that provide benefits to the powerful elites. The just man always ends up profiting substantially less whereas the unjust man, through his wicked cleverness and unfair deeds ends up achieving more material goods, power and merits in society (343 c-d). In reaction to these accounts advocating injustice, Socrates set out to disprove these claims and build an impermeable reason to support a just life that is both “intrinsically and instrumentally good” (Singh, 2017). By this, Socrates wanted to show justice as something that’s good in and of itself as well as for its effects. In his quest to uncover the desirability of justice regardless of any conventions, Socrates moves towards finding the absolute truth through magnifying justice in a made-up city, or kallipolis where everyone is assigned a specific craft and only those with wisdom and knowledge know how to harmonize and moderate the divisions within themselves (434 a-c).