JUST STATE IN PLATO ;A CRITICAL EXPOSITION

JUST
STATE IN PLATO

(A
CRITICAL EXPOSITION)

CHAPTER
ONE

BACK
GROUND OF THE STUDY.

 1.1 Statement of the Problem

The inability of man to satisfy his
limitless needs arising from his self-insufficiency drives him to seek the
service of others in the society. Hence, the origin of the state is traceable
to the fact that man naturally is a social being who cannot but live in the
society comprising of other men. It is only in the society that man can realize
his being and attain the goal of his existence. Therefore, the state exists for
man and not man for the state, since man creates the state. In this regard, it
is the function of the state to provide for man’s needs. The primary purpose
for establishing the state is to work for the goal of man.

However, the goal for which the state is
established is never completely achieved, most often due to man’s egocentric
nature, injustice, factionalism, incompetence, etc which leads to disorder in
different spheres of the state. For instance, in Athens, the Athenians were undergoing
various forms of social perversion ranging from injustice, intimidation,
marginalization, and socio-political crises leading to the disrespect of the
fundamental human rights. All these were happening in the days of Plato and he
was moved to postulate what he thought was the best government for the human
society, especially in Athens.

Meanwhile,
man as a political animal (ens politikos) and a social being (ens socialis)
encounters such problems as to how he should live, who should rule or be ruled,
what form of political society to be adopted, what are the ideas for the state?
And, many such questions, as we shall see in this work.

1.2
Purpose of the Study.

“Love
is the basis of Justice”1 as
Augustine would have it, and this agrees with Plato’s idea of harmony between
the three classes in the state each performing his duty out of love of each
other so as to achieve the common goal (good of the society).  Plato and the rest of the moral philosophers
who sort for Justice in the world could be called the prophets of social
Justice.

Given
the nature of this work, it is limited to the most striking points in Plato’s
discussion on politics, and the emergence of an ideal state governed in Justice
i.e., on how best the state should be governed for the interest of both the
state and citizens. This work is directed to solving social political problems
that arise in the contemporary politics, following the paradigm, which should
be applied in the present day politics,

1.3 Scope of the Study

Plato gives an idealistic interpretation
of Justice in his state. Meanwhile, this research work will be based mainly on
the theories of ideal state propounded by Plato. The views of other
Philosophers will also be entertained as well.

1.4 Methodology

The work is philosophical. The method is
expository, descriptive and evaluative in nature. It will examine the relevance
of Plato’s just state when applied to Nigerian, and finally conclusion is drawn
at the end of this work.

1.5 Division of Work

This work is divided into five chapters.
Chapter one takes into consideration the background of the study and the
literature review of Justice beginning from the most recognized ancient
philosophers till the time of Plato. Chapter two is a brief survey of the key
concepts. The definition of state and Justice as the leaven of the ideal state.
Chapter three is a brief assessment of the nature of the Just state in Plato.
It is further divided into three namely the origin of the state, the citizens
of the state. The state should be self- sufficing and capable of protecting its
citizens from internal and external problem since it is natural to man and
exists for the provision of numerous needs of man. Hence, leadership of the
state by competent hand i.e., philosopher king. Chapter four, considers the
various forms of political society in Plato showing the bad and good forms,
where the former aims at satisfying the selfish interests of the rulers, the
later at the good of the state and the entire citizenry. Chapter five deals
with evaluation, pointing out Plato’s relevance to the present day (Nigerian)
politics, and lastly the conclusion of this research work.

1.6 Literature Review

 “No one speaks from nowhere,”2 said Hans Gadamer. It is on this ground
that we wish to explore our literature reviews, surveying how some political
writers conceived this concept justice, taking cognisance of its definition as
the strong and firm will to dish to each that which is his/her due. Meanwhile,
their notions of justice differ considerably, especially the sophists, which
was one of the major reasons that brought Plato into the scene.

1.6.1 Sophists

They
are teachers who came to Athens to deliberate more on human nature, how
knowledge is acquired and how human might order their behaviour. But, in the real
sense of it they were political and legal men. Meanwhile, we shall look at two
of them.

1.6.1.1 Protagoras (481-410BC)

He
was best known for his statement that “man is the measure of all things, of the
things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are
not”3.
For him, knowledge is limited to our various perceptions and these perceptions
differ with each other.  He maintained
that moral judgments are relative. He was willing to admit that the idea of
Justice or law reflects a general desire in each culture for a moral order
among all people. Nevertheless, he denied that there was any uniform law of
nature pertaining to human behaviour that all peoples everywhere could
discover. Though, he distinguished between nature and custom or convention and
said that law and moral rules are based, not upon nature, but upon convention,
thereby taking a conservative position that the state makes the laws and that
these laws should be accepted by everyone because they are as good as and that can
be made.

Hence,
for the interest of a peaceful and orderly society, people should respect and
uphold the customs, Laws and moral rules their tradition has carefully
nurtured. One should not set his private judgment against the law of the state
so that Justice may prevail.

1.6.1.2 Thrasymachus 
(Late 5th century)

He
was a man who asserts that injustice is to be preferred to the life of Justice.
He did not look upon injustice as a defect of character. On the contrary, he
said, “Justice is pursued by simpletons and leads to weakness”4. For him, people should pursue their
own interest aggressively in a virtually unlimited form of self- assertion.

He
regards justice as the interest of the stronger and believed that might is
right, for laws are made by the ruling party for its own interest. Hence, he
defined law as what is right and is the same in all states with the same
meaning as the interest of the party established in power.  Stumpf affirms that, “what is right is the
same everywhere, the interest of the stronger party”5.
That is the reduction of morality to power, an inevitable logical consequence
of the progressive radicalism of the sophists, which led them to a nihilistic
attitude toward truth and ethics.

1.6.2 Socrates (470-399BC)

He
was the first great moral philosopher among the Greeks. Though he wrote
nothing, his life and teaching made much impression on his disciples who penned
down all about his philosophy and life. He was a man of confounding self-
discipline and strong character who lived and died in accordance with his moral
principles.  Omoregbe states that:

He told the
people of Athens that his mission was to do the greatest good to everyone of
them, to persuade everyone among you that he must look into himself and seek
virtue and wisdom before he looks to his private interests….6

 Seeking for the truth helps them to live a
good life and knowledge is a means to this moral life. Then, virtue and good
actions flow from knowledge, while wrongdoing is the result of ignorance.  The goal of life is happiness, and the only
path that leads to it is virtue.  To sum
it up, he was a man of great discipline (justice). He placed justice under the
highest kind of virtue. Hence, Justice is a prerequisite for happiness and it
culminates into love.

1.6.3 Aristophanes (448-380BC)

He
was a critique of the democracy of his time due to its ridiculous practice of
Justice. His attack was highly based on the fact the democrats failed to
abolish private property and the institution of marriage. For him, these were
the causes of inequalities among the citizens. Thus, he advocates for communism
where he believed that righteousness or justice could be maintained. And as he
said it, “…will abolish poverty, eliminate the ubiquitous Athenian lawsuits,
introduce genuine equality, and destroy crime”7.

For
him, there was nothing natural about war, for it destroyed so large a part of
Athenian life due to the fact that men had departed from the paths of justice,
which had somehow been formerly enshrined in the traditional order8. He advocates for the restoration of
old order, thereby eliminating both the disease of the polis internally and the
disintegration caused by war in the external scene. Advocating for equal share
and proposition of communism where he thought that Justice would be maintained
in its fullest.