Justice and Confession
August 16, 2011
In book one of Plato’s dialogue The Republic, Socrates the philosopher discusses justice with a character named Trasymachos. Trasymachos starts out by defining justice as that which is to the advantage of the strongest. His line of thought is that, since the just have principles that keep them from taking what they want, the strong will always be able to take advantage of the just — all they have to do is disregard the principles of justice. Therefore, in Trasymachos’ opinion, the unjust will also always be happier than the just.
Socrates of course, by his ironic use of questions asked out of feigned ignorance, brings Trasymachos around to see that justice is really the same as the good exercise of leadership. Therefore, he argues, any group or individual not adhering to justice will ultimately fail in achieving their goals, since they will be completely disorganised in their bad leadership.
This seems strange to me, since I’d be inclined to say that skillful leadership doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with justice. While I’m Platonic enough to believe that there are ultimate standards for good, and that a society organised according to these standards will be good, I don’t see what’s to stop any group or society from aiming at an unjust, bad, goal and getting organised so as to reach it. And they may very well reach it.
Of course, global capitalism is still organised according to this conception of justice. As long as one group or segment (nation, corporation, family, individual) is organised well enough to achieve their goals, economic forces should automatically take care of things so that the result will be a just and affluent society for all other groups as well. Clever organisation equals just organisation. Skill equals goodness. Is this really so? I don’t see how.
But perhaps Platonic justice still has an ace to play in this game. Perhaps we’re wrong in thinking that any group may truly reach the goals they aim for if they disregard justice for other groups.
Perhaps it’s a matter of more deeply examining the goals that groups may be aiming at. What if the immediate goals of any one individual or group really reflect some deeper longing, and what if the fulfillment of this longing depends on a universal fulfillment — one that includes all other individuals and groups as well?
This seems to be implied by Platonic justice. If my immediate goal may be achieved regardless of justice for all, then I must examine my heart and see that this immediate goal is not my true goal. I must see that my attempt at segregating myself and my own happiness from universal happiness is really bound to fail. Why? Because the split I’m making really runs, internally, through the very person that I am. Not only am I separating myself from global community, I’m separating myself from my own true goals, thus splitting myself apart. And yes, I do confess that I am.
Indeed, Plato’s conception of justice bears within it the seeds of the spiritual practice called confession. A practice formalised some centuries later by the Church. It’s a subjective practice meant to reconnect the confessing sinner with objective reality. It’s the practice of laying bare the bad organisation of the fragments of self, so that healing (i.e. “making whole”) may take place and restore a true longing for justice.
