Plato and Socrates and morality

Plato and Ethics

Context:

In Ancient Greece Plato argued there were 4 virtues: Wisdom (prudence), Courage (Fortitude), Self Discipline (Temperance) and Justice. All were generally accepted as virtues except Justice and this was what Plato was arguing for. Note: 'Virtue' in ancient Greece meant the attribute of doing something that was good for your personal well being, not the Jane Austin type of virtue.

In his book 'Republic' Plato records a fictional conversation between Glaucon and Socrates to look a at the issue of Justice. (In ancient Greek justice was the closest approximation to the English word ethics so we should view it as such). Being just (which is the same as being moral or ethical in our terms) Glaucon argues is not a virtue in itself, only to seem to be virtuous. Socrates disagrees.

The Debate: Socrates versus Glaucon (not be confused with Glutton)

Glaucon's position

Glaucon says there are three types of 'goods'. Here again we need to explain the terminology. Goods are things that are enjoyable that can happen to a person.

a) There is the good which are immediate pleasures, but which are not related to their consequences (ie getting drunk at an office party). Ie its intrinsic.

b) good which has immediate pleasure and pleasurably consequences (ie being healthy)

c) good which is only apparent for its consequences such as staying out of prison. Or perhaps taking credit for someone elses good deeds.

Glaucon suggests that most people believe justice lies in the 'c' category., as it offers no immediate pleasure. Socrates believes 'b'.

This leads Glaucon to two big conclusions:

1. People only do the right thing if they believe it will lead to the right consequences, they don't do the right thing because doing the right thing is intrinsically good. Ie they only do the right thing because of fear of the consequences if they do bad. The story of the ring of Gyges which makes the wearer invisible shows what would happen if people were sure they would get away with bad things. The Shepard usurped the King! The good person cannot help but be bad if he knows he can get away with it.
2. Also people would be stupid to do otherwise! The Just (for the sake of it) are wretched idiots!! Just is not a virtue. People that do the right thing for some kind in profound purpose are mental!! Thus to return to the notion of the virtues - Justice cannot be a virtuous because it is not intrinsically good to be virtuous, only to appear to be virtuous and get the credit for it!!! You can actually be un-virtuous to gain an advantage. In fact, to be just, but without trying to gain credit, would be a stupid thing to do (you would not gain any personal advantage).

Origins of Justice

And why do people believe in 'c'. Glaucon tells you why. Its because of the way justice was originated. Glaucon suggests that 'to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice evil'. By this he means the good and evil from the individuals personal enjoyment. Thus to steal is your car is a good injustice for me and a bad injustice for you because I have your car! Now, generally, to suffer injustice is worse than to do injustice thus a tacit agreement is set. To be just is a compromise between these two points. People would naturally be unjust if it weren't for the threat of sanction.

Socrates position

Socrates main argument is against Glaucon's second claim (2 above) that being just isn't a virtue at all. He introduces to arguments to this effect. One is argument from mental health, the other is the argument from superior judgement.

Plato's tripartite theory of the mind

First however I need to explain Plato's tripartite theory of the mind.

Plato's tripartite theory of the mind is thus: the mind is split into three parts-

a) rational part

b) the passionate part which is concerned with emotional drive

c) desirous part which is concerned with physical appetites

The passionate part should take orders from the rational part and they both control the desirous part. If this is so then the mind is harmonious.

Socrates argument from mental health

Socrates argues that the unjust are not ruled by the rational part of there brain, and that those not ruled by the rational part of there brain are unhappy. Hence the unjust are unhappy. So being just good for you. The reason for this is that being unjust means your mental faculties are unaligned and that either your passionate or desirous part are in power. Basically you are suffering from some mental decease.

Socrates argument from superior judgement

You may be thinking why the those that are ruled by the rational part of there brain are happy? I know I was. Well its because they know what it is to be happy- thats why. And Socrates uses the example of a typical type of people- philosophers- to show this.

Each of the three types of minds has their own pleasure and each person dominated by this trait would argue that their pleasure was the best type. How to judge which is the best? How do these people make their decisions on what will give them the best pleasure? On the basis of three tests for good decision making for happiness is experience, intelligence and rationality. Yet it would only be the rational philosopher that would have experience of all three types of mind trait- therefore he is best placed to know what it is to be happy.