The Platonic

Concept of Justice
Peter Emmanuel A. Mara

The most interesting discussion that Socrates brings out in

the Republic is the concept of justice. Contrary to the usual
perception that justice directly assumes a societal connotation,
Socrates puts a radical theory on how to arrive at justice. At the
beginning of the Republic, Socrates’ interlocutors raised their
ideas about justice that are merely based on social and political
domain. For example, Cephalus’ idea of justice is rooted on his
wealth. Therefore, justice for him is associated with telling the
truth and paying one’s debts.1 For Thrasymachus, he upholds the
conventional justice as doing what is in the interest of the ruling
class, or the stronger party. He believes that the person is better
off unjust than just. Glaucon, also, lays his idea of justice. He
offers his social contract theory as an account of the nature of
justice. He believes that justice is by nature a compromise
between the states of affairs. 2 Socrates pursues a different path
in explaining the nature of justice. His problem is where to find
the true meaning of justice. Since all of his interlocutors believe in
the direct cohesion of justice in state affairs and politics, he
proposes to study justice using the individual man. Brann
comments, “They all take it for granted that justice is primarily an
individual, and not poltical or social matter. Plato does not care
Plato, Republic 331, in Great Books of Western World, Volume 7,
1

Robert M. Hutchins (ed.), (Chicago: Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1954), p. 297.

2
Republic 358c1 – 359a6-7. Norman O. Dahl has a brief summary of
these ideas of Socrates’ interlocutors in his online article ““Plato's Defense of
Justice” in JSTOR <http://links.jstor.org/
sici?sici=00318205%28199112%2951%3A4%3C809%3APDOJ%3E2.0.CO%3B
2-M> (Date Accessed: September 28, 2007). Hereafter cited as Plato’s
Defense of Justice.
about political or social justice, but justice as a human virtue, an
individual quality.” 3 However, there seems to be a problem as he
investigates justice in the human individual. The human individual
is hard to approach and study. It would be easier then to magnify
this individual in order to clearly uproot the notion of justice. Plato
writes,

The state is larger than the individual… then in the larger

quantity of justice is likely to be larger and more discernible. I
propose therefore that we enquire into the nature of justice and
injustice first as they appear in the state, and secondly the
individual, proceeding from the greater to the lesser comparing
them. 4

The discussion of justice, then, proceeds from the individual,

but since it is easier to view it at large, it is primarily analyzed in
the society. Plato made the analogy of the individual and the state
in discussing justice. However, Plato was apparently aware that
his account of justice is a rough draft or mere sketch, and that “a
longer and a harder way would have to be traveled for an
adequate treatment of these matters.” 5 But as a matter of fact,
he does not take this other way; he is satisfied for the present to
continue with his inexact method. 6 Thus, he pursues the

3
Eva Brann, The Music of the Republic: Essays on Socrates’
Conversations and Plato’s Writings, (Philadelphia:Paul Dry Books, 2004), p.
249.
4
Republic Book 2, 369
5
Republic Book 4, 435D. Cf. Charles H. Kahn “The Meaning of `Justice'
and the Theory of Forms” in JSTOR
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022362X%2819721005%2969%3A%
3C567%3ATMO%60AT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D> (Date Accessed: September 28,
2007), p. 571.
6
Hans Kelsen “Platonic Justice” in JSTOR
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00141704 %28193
804%2948%3A3%3C367%3APJ%3E2.0.CO%3 B2-O> (Date Accessed:
September 28, 2007), p. 393.
discussion of justice as it is seen first in the state and the
individual, which is the pattern of this exposition as well

A.Justice in the State

The theory of the birth of the state is grounded on the

premise that man is not self sufficient, which means that there is
only single task or talent that he is bound to be capable of. Other
needs that his talent cannot provide must be expected to be
provided by the other. He is in need of the other which propels
him to form association with other not-self-sufficient individuals.
Foster puts it, “each man specializes in the production of a given
necessity and is dependent on other specialists for the supply of
his remaining needs. Plato writes,

I am myself reminded that we are not alike; there are diversities

of natures among us which are adapted to different occupations.
7

This principle of Plato suggests that we are predisposed to

perform different jobs within the society. This brings out the
unique ability of man in every field which enables the division of
labor to be established in the state. Division of labor also
identifies the social class into which every citizen belongs.
According to Plato, the characteristic activity of a certain kind of
thing is what only that kind of thing does or what if does better
than any kind of thing.8 There is an inherent nature in man that
makes him do a certain activity that is exclusive of him to do.
Before Socrates makes explicit the predisposition of the
individuals based on their abilities, he mythologizeS this point by
telling the noble lie. He says,

7
Republic Book 2, 370.
8
Cf. Republic Book 1 352 – 353.
 Citizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you are brothers, but
God has framed you differently. Some of you have the power to
command, and in the composition of these he has mingled gold,
wherefore he has the greatest honour; others he has made of
silver, to be auxiliaries; others again who are to be husbandmen
and craftsmen he has composed brass and iron. 9

This should not be taken literally which may mean that there
is a chemical substance infused by God in us at birth. Instead, it
should be understood as abilities being given as a nature to the
citizens by the Divine. Plato wants to base class distinctions on
ability instead of birth (or heredity). 10 Which brings us to the
notion of three social class: the ruler, auxiliaries, and the
merchant. To derive this distinction of classes, the ability must be
the criterion. The ruler is defined by his ability to command; the
auxiliaries, by his ability to provide aid to whatever the ruler
commands; and the merchant (husbandmen and craftsmen) by
his ability to provide the basic needs of every citizen. Citizens
work according to the nature endowed to them in birth. One’s
nature is the basis of one’s occupation. Therefore, in doing
fulfilling one single task, he is only actualizing the nature (ability)
that is inherent in him.

To explicitly discuss justice in the state without its reference

to the justice in the individual would be an incomplete task. For it
is said that the society is an individual writ large. Its constitution
depends ultimately on the individuals whom it is composed, and
those characters which he has seen in large outline in the state. 11
For how can the classes in the society be derived if not for the

9
Republic Book 3, 415.
10
Nickolas Pappas, Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Plato and the
Republic, (London and New York, 2003), p. 75.
11
William Boyd, An Introduction to the Republic of Plato, (London:
George Allen & Unwin, 1962), p. 41.
constitution of the human individual and his abilities? The true
justice in the city is derived when we also understand the
constitution of the individual for it is the basis of the state.

B. Justice in the Individual

Plato has established the constitution of the state in order to

understand how the soul of the individual is further divided. Since
the soul is comparatively smaller or abstract than the state, which
is visible, concrete and contained in a larger domain, the latter is
effectively used by Plato in order to demonstrate its constitution,
and afterwards set this pattern on its direct counterpart in the
individual. Plato presumes an analogy between the state and
man, and believes that man can be understood easier if viewed in
a larger proportion of the state. 12 But since the larger domain of
the state has already explicated the three class distinction of the
society, then we must turn to the manner it has been referred to
the individual soul. Therefore, as the state is composed of three
divisions, then the soul is logically divided into three parts. Plato
writes,

But a further question arises: Is passion different from reason..;

instead of three principles in the soul, there will only be two, the
rational and the appetite [also, concupiscent]; or rather, as the
state was composed of three classes, traders, auxiliaries,
counselors, so may there not be in the individual soul a third
element which is passion or spirit, and when not corrupted by bad
is the auxiliary of reason. 13

The method of analogy between the state and the individual

makes Plato arrive at the constitution of the individual soul as it is
patterned on the society. The three elements of the individual soul
are reason, spirit and the appetite. The first one is a rational
12
Kelsen, op. cit., p. 391.
13
Republic Book 4, 440 – 441. (Emphasis mine).
faculty and the other two are irrational faculties unless
disciplined. Further, Plato ascribes the function of these faculties
and their interconnection with each other. He says,

The rational principle ought to be wise and has the care of the
whole soul, [and also] to rule; the spirit [ought] to be the subject
and ally [of reason]… And these two thus nurtured and educated,
and having learned truly to know their own functions, will rule
over the concupiscent, which in each of us is the largest part of
the soul and by nature most insatiable of gain: over this they will
keep guard… 14

Plato suggests that each of the virtues have their own character
and goal to pursue. The basis of this characterization is the very
object of each faculty that makes it function. Dahl explains it in
this way, “Plato takes the three parts of the soul to have their own
appropriate objects of desire for wealth along with desires for
food, drink and sex [appetite]. Spirit includes not only anger, but
also desires for honor and political success. Reason provides a
person with desires for knowledge and truth.”15 Therefore, reason
must possess wisdom; spirit, courage; and appetite/concupiscent,
temperance. Plato has an extensive explanation on each of these,
he says,

And he is deemed courageous whose spirit retains in pleasure

and in pain the commands of reason about what he ought or
ought not to fear…We call wise who has in him that little part
which rules, and which proclaims these commands; that part
being supposed to have a knowledge of what is for the interest of
each of the three parts and the whole… He is temperate who has
these same elements in friendly harmony, in whom the one
ruling principle of reason, and the two subject ones of spirit and

14
Republic Book 4, 441 – 442.
15
Norman O. Dahl. “Plato's Defense of Justice” in JSTOR
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?
sici=00318205%28199112%2951%3A4%3C809%3APDOJ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-
M> (Date Accessed: September 28, 2007), p. 819.
 desire are equally agreed that reason ought to rule, and do not
rebel. 16

Plato calls these things as virtues. It should animate each faculty

in order to perform its own task. These virtues allow a person to
live characteristically human life and to live it well with respect to
different aspects of human life. 17 The virtues are the guiding
factor that keeps an individual to keep hold of every function of
each of his faculties. Wisdom allows man to realize the rational
principle of reason; courage, the spirited principle of the spirit;
and temperance, the concupiscent principle of the appetite
although guided and controlled by the two former virtues.
Importantly, Plato ascribes these virtues in the three classes of
the state. Wisdom as pursued by the ruler/guardian class, courage
possessed by the soldier/auxiliary class, and temperance
embodied by the merchant/trader class. In the mind of Plato, the
virtues are composed of four, the other one being justice. The
three previous virtues are focused and integrated only to their
corresponding faculties and perform their function exclusively
without interfering the other’s job. The remaining virtue is then
called justice. At the latter part of Book 5, Plato further explains
how justice works in the individual,

But in reality justice was such as we were describing, being

concerned however, not with the outward man, but with the
inward, which is the true self and concernment of man: for the
just man does not permit the several elements within him to
interfere with one another, or any of them to do the works of
others, - he sets in order his own inner life, and is his own master
and his own law, and at peace with himself…18

16
Republic Book 4, 442
17
Dahl, op. cit., p. 810.
18
Republic Book 4, 443.
 Plato has established the justice in the individual as the
epitome of all paradigms of justice, more specifically the justice in
the state. Justice is merely focused on the inner workings of the
human individual with the harmonious interrelatedness of the
three faculties. Although, Plato acknowledges the fact that there
is a dominant virtue and faculty present in every individual,
however he also said that no man is devoid of all of these three
virtues, which also presupposes an absence of the other two
faculties in man. Nobody is altogether devoid of any virtues. Even
the worker must have a wisdom and courage of a kind. Thus
justice implies not merely the faithful performance of citizen
duties but the regulation of the elements of the soul in view of the
business life. 19 The well-regulated soul becomes wise when its
reason rules, courageous when its spiritual part acts bravely,
temperate when all three parts accepts the rule of reason. 20 Plato
is speaking of the justice as equated with harmony and regulation
of the soul. The just man possesses a harmonious soul. Harmony
in the soul is to be able to endow the task of each faculty to be in
their own position, not transgressing other’s job. More
importantly, there is no conflict and confusion that arise in the
psychic structure of the soul. Justice applies to persons in virtue of
their harmonious souls, and derivatively to actions that promote
harmony of the soul. 21 Furthermore, the person with a full
understanding of the nature of justice will be moved to act justly
because doing so is something good in itself, 22 and it is both
symptom and contributing causes of justice in the soul, unjust
ones are both symptoms and causes of injustice.23 From just
actions we can directly discuss the justice in the state because
19
Boyd, op. cit., p. 44.
20
Pappas, op. cit., p. 87.
21
Dahl, op. cit., p. 831.
22
Ibid., p. 829.
23
Pappas, op. cit., p. 88.
these actions are the vehicle of the individual to perform his
duties as a citizen of the state.

From this supposition, justice in the state is directly similar to

the psychic phenomena of justice. Plato says,

Seeing then, I said, that there are three distinct classes, any
medling of one with another is the greatest harm to the state,
and may be most justly termed evil-doing… [However], when the
trader, the auxiliary, and the guardian each do their own
business, that is justice, and will make the city just. 24

Justice in the state is similarly patterned on the justice found in

the individual soul. The primary focus however of the justice in
the state is the executory action of the individual as he is fulfilling
duty towards social harmony. Doing one’s own job is the essence
of social justice. However, justice in general cannot be just
relegated to the social order, but must be indebted to its root, the
soul. Foster comments, “The mere maintenance of a certain social
order – e.g. of the division of labor exemplified in the primitive
society – is not the whole of justice. It is important that the just
act should not only conform to such an external standard, but that
it should proceed from a fixed disposition of the soul which needs
to be formed by education. 25 Just like the soul when it achieves
psychic harmony, the state enjoys harmony when they keep
themselves in their position, and perform their own duties as
citizens, without the interference from the other class.

To sum up, Plato has established the integral connection of

the individual soul and the state. He inquires the nature of justice
simply by looking at the basic constitution of the soul based on its
24
Republic, Book 4, 434.
25
M. B. Foster. “On Plato's Conception of Justice in the Republic” in
JSTOR
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00318094%28195104%291%3A3%3C206%3A
OPCOJI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P> (Date Accessed: September 28, 2007), p. 211.
connection to the state and vice versa. To quote Pappas, “the
purpose behind Plato’s theoretical division of the city has been all
along
to show how the classes come harmoniously back together.” 26
Despite the method of Plato in setting distinction among the parts
of the soul and the society, he provides still the pattern of their
harmonious playing forth of duties towards the progress of the
individual and the state. The psychic parts and divisions of labor
tell us the distributive duties among faculties and individuals as
they act as participatory towards psychic and social harmony.

26
Pappas, op. cit., p. 81.