How Does Socrates An Unjust Form Of Government

One of the most provocative claims that Plato makes through the voice of Socrates in The Republic is that a democracy is an unjust form of government. This view is illustrated in the quote above. This quote can be found in Book VIII in the passage in which Socrates describes how a democracy comes to be. He is claiming that, although a democracy gives voice to the voiceless, this is not a just form of government because some people should not be given a voice in government. In modern society, this claim would equate to the idea that people from low socio-economic backgrounds should not be allowed to vote because they don’t understand the political system or climate. Socrates’ claim must be elucidated, but first, Socrates’ definition of a democracy
is a form of government that gives equal voice to all citizens, and, therefore, the government is reflective of the desires of the people as a whole. Unlike an aristocracy or a tyranny, the rulers are subject to the wishes of the people as opposed to being loyal to justice or their own desires respectively. Rulers are assigned by popular choice, not based on ability, and therefore the government is inconsistent and ineffective. A perfectly democratic government truly represents and reflects the attitudes of all citizens, not only a minority or a simple majority. A just government serves the people and creates a well-functioning city that does not cater to individuals but rather facilitates harmony and peace. Socrates believes that the desires of the population are not always just, so a democracy is not just. Socrates argues that a democracy is not just because it lies in the hands of the masses, whose easily corruptible and self-serving hands will make a city unjust. His argument is thus: 1) A democracy gives equal voice to all people even those who don’t have the correct conception of justice. 2) People who do not have the correct conception of justice are not always just. 3) If people are not always just and a democracy gives equal voice to all people, then a democracy is not just. C) A democracy is not just.
Through this argument Socrates highlights human error as a source of injustice in a democracy. While Socrates’ argument is valid, his second premise is not sound. I do not agree that the desires of the people, rooted in a misconception of justice, are not just. It is the role of the people in a democracy to determine what is just. I argue the following: 1) Justice is a concept defined by society. i) If justice is a defined by society, then society’s voice decides what is just. 2) A democracy is a society in which the citizens have a voice.
i) If the voice of the people determines justice, then a democratic society is just. C) A democracy is just.
I believe the citizens of a democracy demarcate justice. A just city must change and progress in with the desires of the people or else it will cease to function harmoniously and will no longer be just. The people comprise the city and are responsible for maintaining its inner peace, so they must be given a voice to create a just city. Socrates would disagree that justice can be defined by the people. Socrates believes that justice is innate. The people cannot determine justice; philosophers can only discover it. Socrates would argue: 1) Justice is unchanging. 2) If justice is unchanging, then it cannot be determined by society. C) Justice cannot be determined by society.
Socrates asserts that justice can be demarcated and set forth in the form of unchanging principles and unassailable values. Justice is not for uneducated citizens and lowly scientists to decide upon, for only the knowers of truth can conclude what the quality of being just incontrovertibly is. I disagree with Socrates’ first premise that justice is unchanging. Like the desires of the citizens, justice is subject to time and
circumstance. 1) Justice is the expression of what is right and fair. 2) What is right and fair is a matter of opinion, not an objective set of principles. 3) If justice is a matter of opinion, then justice is ever evolving. C) Justice is ever evolving.
My counterargument is based in the view that justice is not a definitive set of principles. No one definition of justice can be applied to every circumstance; it must be operationalized in the context in which it is being questioned. Because a just city facilitates harmony among the people, it must give the people a voice to define the elusive justice it seeks. Justice is a matter of opinion and democracy takes into account the opinions of the people, ergo democracy is a just form of government.