In Gorgias and Apology, Socrates' ideas about justice are explained in depth. Although Plato wrote both of these texts, it is really Socrates who is doing the talking. On the other hand, The Republic is Plato's ideas and concepts being explained, using Socrates as the mouthpiece. In this essay, I will explain, compare, and contrast both Socrates' and Plato's conceptions of justice.
The Apology is a good place to begin with Socrates' idea of justice, because he explains it well and is a victim of what he considers to be injustice. A major part of what Socrates says is that one should never commit injustice, and furthermore, one should never fail to be just. In this, Socrates seems to think that injustice is more than doing wrong; it is also failure to do right. This is a far cry from what many of his opponents put forth, that justice is merely not doing wrong.
Socrates' defense of his actions focuses upon two major points that are crucial to understanding his idea of justice: that he did what he did because he was told to do so by the Appolonian oracle at Delphi, and that he felt within himself a need to be a philosopher. Socrates believes that it is unjust to disregard the orders of one's superiors, both mortal and immortal. He also believes that one must stick to their convictions no matter what the price, even death. He states the latter eloquently, by saying that wickedness is harder to avoid than death. This also is a reflection of Socrates' somewhat dim view of humanity, because death is inevitable, and therefore he believes that one will be wicked. One might say that this is the role that the "guardians" and gods play for Socrates: to keep men from being wicked. Without these superiors, mankind would sink into a quagmire of their own filth and evil. This is Socrates' defense, his excuse for not playing along with the unwritten laws of conformity in Athens. He was acting as a defender of the faith, running contrary to what the rest of the citizens thought was right. His feeble attempt to offer money is really a concerted effort to show the jurors how foolish their brand of justice is.
Socrates smashes the common conceptions of justice once again in Gorgias. From the outside, it is obvious that a war over right and wrong will be fought, when Socrates and his companions are told that they must stay because they are weaker. After his initial sparring with Gorgias and his cohorts over trifles such as the power of oratory (which is used to expose the common man's susceptibility to smooth words without substance, a theme that is echoed in Apology), Socrates sets forth that tyrants are truly weak, just as orators have no true knowledge. Here, we see Socrates expounding the idea that free actions do not prove free will, and that they are not mutually inclusive. Socrates does not think that being able to do what you see fit is the same as doing what you want, because he believes that what people truly want deep inside is justice.
Is this a contradiction with his assault on his jurors in Apology? Not really. His attack on the jurors is based on the fact that they were deceived during the duration of their lives by orators, rhetoricians, and playwrights. Because these people exist, and the city is not ruled by wise men, individuals will always do wrong, because they allow the pull of their emotions to overpower the strength of their rationality. His point is proven when Socrates fails to pull the juror's heartstrings in the acceptable fashion, and instead appeals to their rationality, and is condemned to his death. In his conviction, Socrates proves his point (regardless of the fact that much of his defense is not logically sound; he fails to address many of the charges, and does not convincingly deny those that he does address).
His next major point in Gorgias is that doing the unjust is far more damaging to your soul that receiving wrong, even if it is revenge. Moreover, the only way to purify a soul injured by performing evil is to be punished for the crimes. But even in punishment, the soul is not clean, it is merely less dirty. The justice received in the punishment process helps to offset the wrong an individual has committed. And tying this all in with his attitudes towards the laymen, Socrates shows that oratory is bad because it prevents men from knowing what good is, and allows them to perform wrong with a clean conscious. And a clean conscious eliminates the feeling of shame and guilt that allow for self-punishment, and a community overtaken by oratory lacks the collective sense of shame and guilt that provides the tools for the punishment of the wicked.
Overall, Socrates makes good observations in the field of psychology, and applies these ideas to his concept of justice. Revenge, while being emotionally satisfying is irrational. In addition, doing harm to anyone, deserving or not, is a privilege to be reserved for the gods and the government. This is why he allows himself to be sentenced to death, this is why he allows himself to follow orders from the gods that were eventually self-injuring, and this is why, after being sentenced to death, he does not try to escape, even though it is wholly possible. In death, he has shown his dedication to his ideals, and made the ultimate statement in defense of his principles.
Plato's vision is a bit different, as we see in Republic Books I-IV. Here, we see a much gentler Socrates in action, no longer being matched up against one of the fiercest orators in all of Hellas in a "deathmatch of brains," but instead, conversing primarily with his friends, specifically brothers of Plato. In the beginning of Book I, Socrates peacefully convinces Cephelus and Polemarchus that justice is not doing good to friends and wrong to enemies, or that it is only useful in certain aspects of life. But when Thracymachus interrupts this idyllic scene of discussion, Socrates/Plato is forced to put forth his own perceptions of justice.
Thracymachus' idea of "might makes right" is twisted by Socrates/Plato (it is easy to see how the jurors thought he was a Sophist, a charge which he never truly addresses) into the idea that the strong can only be powerful when they make just choices, lest they be overthrown by a united majority. Plato, through Socrates, introduces the idea that knowledge exists for the benefit of others, and that justice is no different. Therefore, rulers must exist to benefit others, or else they will rule no more.
After much more mental arm bending, Socrates/Plato fruitlessly shows the uncovinced Thracymachus that being just is beneficial to others and thus to yourself. Unjust people will never succeed, because the tool that they need to profit is cleverness, the weapon of the just. The unstated idea here is that the just are smart and wise because they have not allowed their desires to overcome their rationality, while the unjust have forgone rationality in favor of impulse. This agrees with Socrates/Plato' account in that the desires of people, their emotions, can override their ability for rational thought if they are not careful. A theme that will be repeated throughout Republic (perhaps it's major theme) is that injustice produces chaos and is universally disharmonious which prevents anyone from benefiting from anything. Therefore, the just person will live better materially, able to reap the benefits of cooperation with others in trade and culture.
Book II opens with a discussion of the idea of doing good for the sake of good. Glaucon very astutely states that most people see justice as a hassle, and is only worth doing for the rewards that follow (harmony, easier life, etc.). He wants Socrates to show him why it is worth being good solely to be good. Glaucon believes, as many others in these dialogues, that people who are given the ability to be unjust without consequence will do so. This is an echo of arguments that Socrates (speaking as Socrates) meets in Gorgias.
Now we have truly begun Republic. Socrates speaking as Plato, with the help of Glaucon and Adeimantus (his partners in abject agreement, with Glaucon especially playing the role of devil's advocate), begin to construct the ideal city in their minds (a subject dealt with later in Republic: true knowledge comes from thinking and reflection, with experience as a catalyst, not from experience itself).
Without reiterating the entirety of the prologue to the ideas, let it suffice to say that the three agree that a healthy community is desirable because it allows each member of the community to focus on doing what they do best, providing tremendous economic and cultural leverage and advancement. Again, we see injustice as hampering the efforts of the community, because everyone would be too busy trying to simultaneously cheat each other and protecting themselves from being cheated, all the while pretending to be good and righteous citizens.
Socrates/Plato now takes the time to explain how the desire for material wealth (emotions over rationality) will provide for an unhealthy city. A city of drunks with orgies in the streets would not be productive, so he tries, despite Glaucon's wishes, to keep the city as minimalist as possible. Unfortunately, Glaucon partially, succeeds, and the stripping of this city of its luxuries is left for Books III and IV. The needs of a luxurious city for things like clothing, fine foods and drink, etc. will require large amounts of land and slaves to do the work, which will lead to warring with other nearby luxury cities. A moderate city will not have these needs, so war can be avoided. The situation in which a moderate city is surrounded by wealthy cities is left for later discussion. But Socrates/Plato allows the creation of a luxurious city, as a springboard for his thoughts on justice.
A luxurious city will need, by definition, an army to maintain it's status. The army, by definition, must be savage. The city, therefore, must have a defense mechanism built into the system to prevent abuses from the army (the Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment for exactly this purpose). The key to successfully maintaining an army, Plato says, is a proper education. When Plato discusses education, he refers to all influences people are exposed to from the moment of sentience. The proper education must not provide children with the opportunity to have knowledge of wrongdoing.
Essential to these good stories is the fact that the gods can only create the good things in our lives, and we create the bad things in our lives. A god has no use for a falsehood, although they are occasionally useful. It is on this note, Plato begins Book III. Plato states that by removing all of the negative influences in the education of the young (fear of death, images of the gods as wild men, and stories of heroes acting cowardly, irrationally, or unjustly), we can raise a "bumper crop" of men suitable to run this potentially perfect city. Moderation in all aspects of life will be stressed, because moderation is one of the four cornerstones of a successful community and soul (moderation, courage, wisdom, and justice). Poetry, music, and plays would be created to stress this foundation; music will inspire courage and thought, poetry will not imitate anything that is not good and will only be put in third person perspective, and plays will follow the poetry. One by one, Socrates/Plato whittles away at all the sumptuousness of the town that Glaucon desires, until a very Spartan town is left. The influence of the current political state of affairs is evident here. Much of what Socrates/Plato says is good is already in place in Sparta, a town noted for its low crime, skill at war, and sense of community (however, Sparta was not known for its educational standards, due to its overemphasis of physical education).
Socrates/Plato is coming to his final points regarding justice. His guardians, the men who will run the city/army will be brought up with a robust mixture of physical education, liberal arts, and will live in an almost Communistic state which will be open for inspection by the citizens. In this way, the guardians will be held in check, and be free from the worries of material wealth, allowing them to concentrate on being wise, rather than greedy. The guardians will never be unhappy, because there will be harmony. Like a painting, each piece of a healthy community will never be happy to the utmost, but enough to build a community that is happy to the utmost because each piece is moderately happy. But one truth is applied to all classes: wealth promotes laziness and greed, whereas poverty hinders the community's progression. Even in matters of wealth Socrates/Plato encourages moderation.
But Socrates/Plato does not believe that justice can be legislative, although he does not directly say so. Socrates/Plato says that "good thinking" cannot be legislated, proper ways to bring up children. An extension of this is that justice itself cannot be legislated. It can only be enforced through the same sense of communal righteousness that Socrates/Plato says is necessary in Gorgias.
Socrates/Plato feels that places of worship are extremely important for the spiritual well-being of the city, which is reminiscent of Socrates' motif of the oracle at Delphi in Apology. Socrates/Plato examines the nature of the soul, and finds a third part, which is the spirit (the other two are rationality and emotions). Socrates/Plato claims that the spirit is the ally of rationality in its fight against the emotions. He says that these items are also found in the city, and just as the city's wisdom, courage, moderation and justice are derived from its citizens, these same qualities in the citizens establish the qualities in the city. Plato ends by reiterating that the just man strives for harmony, and that material wealth and freedom of action produce neither justice nor happiness.
In comparison, Socrates has a much less optimistic view of Man's ability to be just, as the world is fraught with orators, temptations, and poets. On the other hand, Plato suggests a rigorous lifestyle, to the point of the government having a fascist control of the community, in order to guarantee justice. Is there a middle ground? Probably not.
Plato is much more optimistic, making it seem almost simple for justice to be achieved; ban certain types of music, make all children do twenty jumping jacks a day, and justice is made. Mysterious guardians will keep the city running smoothly, and everyone will be happy. Laws are almost unnecessary in Plato's opinion, because the well educated, just man has no need for artificial creations or attempts to legislate justice. Yet Socrates depends on these very same ideals, courts and dedication to a system that proved itself to him to be irrational and full of men who do not think for themselves, preferring to get their knowledge and opinions from orators and plays, a sort of Cliff's Notes education. It is possible that Plato was trying to appeal to a broader audience by putting more emphasis on the beneficial aspects of justice (happiness, community, etc.) than the less attractive parts of Socratic justice (dying to remain "clean") that Socrates chooses to emphasis in Apology and Gorgias.
I have loved working with computers since I was a kid. I specialized in software development, but I also do a lot of systems administration and some network engineering. Currently, my development interests are in C#, parallel processing, and exploring business usage of dynamic and functional languages. In addition to my day job, I write for TechRepublic, primarily in the "Programming and Development" area, and ForMortals. I am currently (when time permits) working on a book that aims to teach new developers everything about how to write software, other than how to program in and of itself. In addition, I do a bit of software development under the banner of my own company, Titanium Crowbar Industries
I love learning about history and philosophy (I doubled majored in those subjects in college) as well. The essays on this site regarding those topics were all written by me in college and high school. I also am extremely interested in physical fitness, and devote a substantial amount of my time to weight lifting. I am currently focusing on lifting heavy weights and I have participated in a few powerlifting meets. Currently, my non-technical readings have focused on various religious ideas and fitness. I am a big fan of Phillip K. Dick and Frank Herbert, and both of those authors have shaped my worldview greatly.
You can also find me on Facebook.