about political or social justice, but justice as a human virtue, anindividual quality.

” 3 However,
there seems to be a problem as heinvestigates justice in the human individual. The human
individualis hard to approach and study. It would be easier then to magnifythis individual in
order to clearly uproot the notion of justice. Platowrites, The state is larger than the
individual... then in the largerquantity of justice is likely to be larger and more discernible.
Ipropose therefore that we enquire into the nature of justice andinjustice first as they appear
in the state, and secondly theindividual, proceeding from the greater to the lesser
comparingthem. 4The discussion of justice, then, proceeds from the individual,but since it is
easier to view it at large, it is primarily analyzed inthe society. Plato made the analogy of the
individual and the statein discussing justice. However, Plato was apparently aware thathis
account of justice is a rough draft or mere sketch, and that “alonger and a harder way
would have to be traveled for anadequate treatment of these matters.” 5 But as a
matter of fact,he does not take this other way; he is satisfied for the present tocontinue with
his inexact method. 6 Thus, he pursues the3 Eva Brann, The Music of the Republic: Essays
on Socrates’Conversations and Plato’s Writings, (Philadelphia:Paul Dry Books, 2004),
p.249.4Republic Book 2, 3695Republic Book 4, 435D. Cf. Charles H. Kahn “The Meaning of
`Justice'and the Theory of Forms” in JSTOR<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022362X
%2819721005%2969%3A%3C567%3ATMO%60AT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D> (Date Accessed:
September 28,2007), p. 571. 6 Hans Kelsen “Platonic Justice” in
JSTOR<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00141704 %28193804%2948%3A3%3C367%3APJ
%3E2.0.CO%3 B2-O> (Date Accessed:September 28, 2007), p. 393.

discussion of justice as it is seen first in the state and theindividual, which is the
pattern of this exposition as wellA.Justice in the StateThe theory of the birth of the state is
grounded on thepremise that man is not self sufficient, which means that there isonly single
task or talent that he is bound to be capable of. Otherneeds that his talent cannot provide
must be expected to beprovided by the other. He is in need of the other which propelshim to
form association with other not-self-sufficient individuals.Foster puts it, “each man specializes
in the production of a givennecessity and is dependent on other specialists for the supply ofhis
remaining needs. Plato writes, I am myself reminded that we are not alike; there are
diversitiesof natures among us which are adapted to different occupations.7This principle of
Plato suggests that we are predisposed toperform different jobs within the society. This
brings out theunique ability of man in every field which enables the division oflabor to be
established in the state. Division of labor alsoidentifies the social class into which
every citizen belongs.According to Plato, the characteristic activity of a certain kind ofthing is
what only that kind of thing does or what if does betterthan any kind of thing.8 There is an
inherent nature in man thatmakes him do a certain activity that is exclusive of him to
do.Before Socrates makes explicit the predisposition of theindividuals based on their
abilities, he mythologizeS this point bytelling the noble lie. He says, 7Republic Book 2, 370. 8
Cf. Republic Book 1 352 – 353.

Citizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you are brothers, butGod has framed you differently.
Some of you have the power tocommand, and in the composition of these he has mingled
gold,wherefore he has the greatest honour; others he has made ofsilver, to be auxiliaries;
others again who are to be husbandmenand craftsmen he has composed brass and iron. 9This
should not be taken literally which may mean that thereis a chemical substance infused by God
in us at birth. Instead, itshould be understood as abilities being given as a nature to thecitizens
by the Divine. Plato wants to base class distinctions onability instead of birth (or heredity). 10
Which brings us to thenotion of three social class: the ruler, auxiliaries, and
themerchant. To derive this distinction of classes, the ability must bethe criterion. The ruler is
defined by his ability to command; theauxiliaries, by his ability to provide aid to whatever the
rulercommands; and the merchant (husbandmen and craftsmen) byhis ability to provide the
basic needs of every citizen. Citizenswork according to the nature endowed to them in birth.
One’snature is the basis of one’s occupation. Therefore, in doingfulfilling one single
task, he is only actualizing the nature (ability)that is inherent in him. To explicitly discuss justice
in the state without its referenceto the justice in the individual would be an incomplete task.
For itis said that the society is an individual writ large. Its constitutiondepends ultimately on
the individuals whom it is composed, andthose characters which he has seen in large outline in
the state. 11For how can the classes in the society be derived if not for the9Republic Book 3,
415.10 Nickolas Pappas, Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Plato and theRepublic, (London
and New York, 2003), p. 75. 11 William Boyd, An Introduction to the Republic of Plato,
(London:George Allen & Unwin, 1962), p. 41.

constitution of the human individual and his abilities? The truejustice in the city is derived
when we also understand theconstitution of the individual for it is the basis of the state.
B.Justice in the Individual Plato has established the constitution of the state in order
tounderstand how the soul of the individual is further divided. Sincethe soul is comparatively
smaller or abstract than the state, whichis visible, concrete and contained in a larger domain,
the latter iseffectively used by Plato in order to demonstrate its constitution,and afterwards
set this pattern on its direct counterpart in theindividual. Plato presumes an analogy between
the state andman, and believes that man can be understood easier if viewed ina larger
proportion of the state. 12 But since the larger domain ofthe state has already explicated the
three class distinction of thesociety, then we must turn to the manner it has been referred
tothe individual soul. Therefore, as the state is composed of threedivisions, then the soul is
logically divided into three parts. Platowrites,But a further question arises: Is passion different
from reason..;instead of three principles in the soul, there will only be two, therational and
the appetite [also, concupiscent]; or rather, as thestate was composed of three classes,
traders, auxiliaries,counselors, so may there not be in the individual soul a thirdelement which
is passion or spirit, and when not corrupted by badis the auxiliary of reason. 13The method of
analogy between the state and the individualmakes Plato arrive at the constitution of the
individual soul as it ispatterned on the society. The three elements of the individual soulare
reason, spirit and the appetite. The first one is a rational12 Kelsen, op. cit., p. 391. 13Republic
Book 4, 440 – 441. (Emphasis mine).

faculty and the other two are irrational faculties unlessdisciplined. Further, Plato
ascribes the function of these facultiesand their interconnection with each other. He says, The
rational principle ought to be wise and has the care of thewhole soul, [and also] to rule; the
spirit [ought] to be the subjectand ally [of reason]... And these two thus nurtured and
educated,and having learned truly to know their own functions, will ruleover the concupiscent,
which in each of us is the largest part ofthe soul and by nature most insatiable of gain: over
this they willkeep guard... 14Plato suggests that each of the virtues have their own
characterand goal to pursue. The basis of this characterization is the veryobject of each faculty
that makes it function. Dahl explains it inthis way, “Plato takes the three parts of the soul to
have their ownappropriate objects of desire for wealth along with desires forfood, drink and
sex [appetite]. Spirit includes not only anger, butalso desires for honor and political success.
Reason provides aperson with desires for knowledge and truth.”15 Therefore, reasonmust
possess wisdom; spirit, courage; and appetite/concupiscent,temperance. Plato has an
extensive explanation on each of these,he says, And he is deemed courageous whose spirit
retains in pleasureand in pain the commands of reason about what he ought orought not to
fear...We call wise who has in him that little partwhich rules, and which proclaims these
commands; that partbeing supposed to have a knowledge of what is for the interest ofeach of
the three parts and the whole... He is temperate who hasthese same elements in friendly
harmony, in whom the oneruling principle of reason, and the two subject ones of spirit and14
Republic Book 4, 441 – 442.15 Norman O. Dahl. “Plato's Defense of Justice”
inJSTOR<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00318205%28199112%2951%3A4%3C809%3APDOJ
%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M> (Date Accessed: September 28, 2007), p. 819.

desire are equally agreed that reason ought to rule, and do notrebel. 16Plato calls these things
as virtues. It should animate each facultyin order to perform its own task. These virtues allow a
person tolive characteristically human life and to live it well with respect todifferent aspects of
human life. 17 The virtues are the guidingfactor that keeps an individual to keep hold of every
function ofeach of his faculties. Wisdom allows man to realize the rationalprinciple of reason;
courage, the spirited principle of the spirit;and temperance, the concupiscent principle of
the appetitealthough guided and controlled by the two former virtues.Importantly,
Plato ascribes these virtues in the three classes ofthe state. Wisdom as pursued by the
ruler/guardian class, couragepossessed by the soldier/auxiliary class, and
temperanceembodied by the merchant/trader class. In the mind of Plato, thevirtues are
composed of four, the other one being justice. Thethree previous virtues are focused and
integrated only to theircorresponding faculties and perform their function
exclusivelywithout interfering the other’s job. The remaining virtue is thencalled justice. At the
latter part of Book 5, Plato further explainshow justice works in the individual, But in reality
justice was such as we were describing, beingconcerned however, not with the outward man,
but with theinward, which is the true self and concernment of man: for thejust man does not
permit the several elements within him tointerfere with one another, or any of them to do the
works ofothers, - he sets in order his own inner life, and is his own masterand his own law, and
at peace with himself...1816Republic Book 4, 442 17 Dahl,op. cit., p. 810.18Republic Book 4,
443.

Plato has established the justice in the individual as theepitome of all paradigms of justice,
more specifically the justice inthe state. Justice is merely focused on the inner workings of
thehuman individual with the harmonious interrelatedness of thethree faculties. Although,
Plato acknowledges the fact that thereis a dominant virtue and faculty present in
every individual,however he also said that no man is devoid of all of these threevirtues, which
also presupposes an absence of the other twofaculties in man. Nobody is altogether devoid of
any virtues. Eventhe worker must have a wisdom and courage of a kind. Thusjustice implies
not merely the faithful performance of citizenduties but the regulation of the elements
of the soul in view of thebusiness life. 19 The well-regulated soul becomes wise when
itsreason rules, courageous when its spiritual part acts bravely,temperate when all three
parts accepts the rule of reason. 20 Platois speaking of the justice as equated with harmony
and regulationof the soul. The just man possesses a harmonious soul. Harmonyin the soul is to
be able to endow the task of each faculty to be intheir own position, not transgressing
other’s job. Moreimportantly, there is no conflict and confusion that arise in thepsychic
structure of the soul. Justice applies to persons in virtue oftheir harmonious souls, and
derivatively to actions that promoteharmony of the soul. 21 Furthermore, the person
with a fullunderstanding of the nature of justice will be moved to act justlybecause doing so
is something good in itself,22 and it is bothsymptom and contributing causes of justice in the
soul, unjustones are both symptoms and causes of injustice.23 From justactions we can
directly discuss the justice in the state because19 Boyd, op. cit., p. 44. 20 Pappas, op. cit., p.
87. 21 Dahl,op. cit.,p. 831.22Ibid., p. 829. 23 Pappas, op. cit., p. 88.

these actions are the vehicle of the individual to perform hisduties as a citizen of the state.
From this supposition, justice in the state is directly similar tothe psychic phenomena of
justice. Plato says, Seeing then, I said, that there are three distinct classes, anymedling of one
with another is the greatest harm to the state,and may be most justly termed evil-doing...
[However], when thetrader, the auxiliary, and the guardian each do their
ownbusiness, that is justice, and will make the city just. 24Justice in the state is similarly
patterned on the justice found inthe individual soul. The primary focus however of the justice
inthe state is the executory action of the individual as he is fulfillingduty towards social
harmony. Doing one’s own job is the essenceof social justice. However, justicein general
cannot be justrelegated to the social order, but must be indebted to its root, thesoul. Foster
comments, “The mere maintenance of a certain socialorder – e.g. of the division of labor
exemplified in the primitivesociety – is not the whole of justice. It is important that the justact
should not only conform to such an external standard, but thatit should proceed from a fixed
disposition of the soul which needsto be formed by education. 25 Just like the soul when it
achievespsychic harmony, the state enjoys harmony when they keepthemselves in their
position, and perform their own duties ascitizens, without the interference from the other
class. To sum up, Plato has established the integral connection ofthe individual soul and the
state. He inquires the nature of justicesimply by looking at the basic constitution of the soul
based on its24Republic, Book 4, 434. 25 M. B. Foster. “On Plato's Conception of Justice in the
Republic” inJSTOR<http://links.jstor.org/sici?
sici=00318094%28195104%291%3A3%3C206%3AOPCOJI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P> (Date Accessed:
September 28, 2007), p. 211.

connection to the state and vice versa. To quote Pappas, “thepurpose behind Plato’s
theoretical division of the city has been allalong to show how the classes come harmoniously
back together.” 26Despite the method of Plato in setting distinction among the partsof the
soul and the society, he provides still the pattern of theirharmonious playing forth of duties
towards the progress of theindividual and the state. The psychic parts and divisions of labortell
us the distributive duties among faculties and individuals asthey act as participatory towards
psychic and social harmony.