“Justice in politics” seems like a contradiction in terms to many. The idea that it is impossible to fight for justice in a political realm lies in Socrate’s words in Plato’s Apology. Socrates considered politics as incompatible with justice and paid for it with his life. Throughout the paper, I support Socrates’ thesis because justice is a “human virtue” that is based on morality independent of the norms and values of the public sphere. To get a better understanding of the topic discussed here, I will start by explaining the key concepts of Socrates’ thesis. I will then defend his thesis by reflecting upon the very concept of justice as a human virtue, to later study whether or not we should depend on human rationality.
Politics is an essential human activity in terms of building safe societies. Socrates argues that human beings enter politics because individuals are not self-sufficient by nature. Each human has certain natural abilities, and the most efficient way to benefit the whole society is by doing the single job one is suited for. We can thus say that the origins of political life erupted from satisfying basic human needs. Because politics is an essential human activity, we ask ourselves whether any political action implies entering the world of politics. Socrates does not engage in politics but makes political statements. Does this mean that he entered the political realm? For Aristotle, human beings are “political animals” by nature, because nature has equipped them with speech, which enables them to communicate moral concepts like justice. But for Socrates, leading a political life is irreconcilable with leading a “just” life. This raises the important question of what justice is. In Apology, Socrates views justice as a virtue when one knows the limits of one’s knowledge. Altogether, justice can be viewed as a philosophical theory in which fairness is carried out in one’s conscience. But telling the right from the wrong, the “just” from the “unjust,” has always been a polemical issue in regards to the universality and ephemerality of the concept.
The philosophical question of what is “just” lies within the thoughts of Plato about Socrate’s views. Is it defined by laws in political systems or is it defined by our conscience? If someone is wrongfully imprisoned, for instance, is it okay to break the written law and escape? This was the dilemma Socrates faced when he was unfairly sentenced to death. The quest for justice starts with reassessing the law one is expected to obey. However, living a political life requires one to make and follow the rules without lingering over their fairness. In general, human beings tend to think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to revise “unjust” laws. In most societies, the government seeks the approval of the majority. To please the majority, politicians favor popular opinions rather than the truth. Governments often derive their power from the majority because they are the strongest group, not because they hold the most legitimate viewpoint. Politicians might therefore make laws based on the norms and values of the majority in that given time and space. Governments favor the majority’s popular opinion leading to the making of “unjust” laws. To lead a “just” life, one must always question and challenge common opinions. Our capacity for reasoning is thus a threat to authority. In Apology, Socrates refuses the command of authority and paid it with his life. This is exactly why Socrates thought that “a man who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if he is to survive even a short time.” One who wants to truly fight for justice must stay out of the public eye, and out of politics due to its corrupt nature. Therefore, justice isn’t defined by the laws of the public sphere. So where does justice stand? Plato argues that justice is a “human virtue” that makes us self consistent and good. To lead a “just” life, we must contribute to the greater good by constantly acting according to our consciences. According to Thoreau, “we should be loyal to justice, not to a political party.” Disobeying an unjust law can therefore be a good way of paying respect to justice. We, as rational human beings, have a duty to evaluate the legitimacy of authority. Leading a “just” life requires us to use our given human rationality to evaluate the legitimacy of the norms and values of the public sphere. Fighting for justice is thus only possible in the private sphere, relying on each individual in a society.
As I just mentioned, living a just life requires a rational human being. But are all humans capable of rational thinking? Looking at our history, human beings may be “rational animal,” but may choose not to use that rationality. Not all people are properly educated and capable of thinking independently of the common thought. Not all people possess the wisdom to challenge popular beliefs. Socrates’ view of wisdom, as expressed by Plato in The Apology, is sometimes interpreted as an example of a humility theory of wisdom. In Plato’s Apology, Socrates does an investigation to unmask people who lack wisdom. He interrogates a series of politicians, poets, and craftsmen. Socrates’ investigation discloses that those who claim to have knowledge either know far less than what they proclaim, or ignore the limits of their own knowledge. Because Socrates views justice as a virtue one possesses only when aware of the limits of one’s own knowledge, it is impossible to rely on the human rationality of individuals.
In this paper, I have argued that living a political life is irreconcilable with living a just life because justice does not rest on common beliefs of the public policy sphere, but on human morality. Even though not all Men use their given human rationality to determine the morality of political issues, they all have the capabilities to do so.