Unjust is best? Maybe Socrates is wrong.

Here’s a question to ponder. Are you better off being a “bad guy” in this world?

For those of you who know me, I was raised to always be wearing the white hat. I guess I got it from my Dad, who always put others’ needs in front of his own. I guess Mom has the same philosophy—i.e., the “more you give, the more you receive” approach. That was the way our family was, and it’s the way I turned out.

Yeah, ok, I admit that Star Trek reinforced that approach to life as well.

But when you think about it, that approach is actually pretty selfish, isn’t it? Maybe we’re nice and giving to others for the sake of ourselves, intending to make others happy, to befriend us, or to respect us, so that in the end we reap some benefits out of the relationship. Could that be right?

Maybe, maybe not.

Certainly, there is a personal satisfaction you get from helping others, regardless of whether you ever receive reciprocal treatment. I’ve certainly felt it. But maybe, throughout evolution, we’ve been programmed to feel this way, and the real truth is that our personal satisfaction is the result of selfishly feeding our ego.

In reading Plato’s Republic, Socrates takes a stab at refuting Thrasymachus’ premise that man is inherently selfish, or better yet, “unjust” by nature. Conversely, he states "I declare justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger" Republic 338c. Robbery and violence are normally called "injustice," but when they are practiced wholesale by rulers, they are justice, i.e. the interest of the stronger, ie. the rulers. Thus, when we consider ordinary citizens, "the just man comes off worse than an unjust man everywhere" (343d). Since the rulers do not obey the principles they impose on the citizens, they are in those terms "unjust." So Thrasymachus says, "You will understand it most easily, if you come to the most perfect injustice, which makes the unjust man most happy, and makes those who are wronged and will not be unjust most miserable" (344a).

He continues…”Tyranny is not a matter of minor theft and violence, but of wholesale plunder, sacred and profane, private or public. If you are caught committing such crimes in detail you are punished and disgraced; sacrilege, kidnapping, burglary, fraud, theft are the names we give to such petty forms of wrongdoing. But when a man succeeds in robbing the whole body of citizens and reducing them to slavery, they forget these ugly names and call him happy and fortunate, as do all others who hear of his unmitigated wrongdoing.”

So, according to Thrasymachus, the tyrant is happy and fortunate, precisely because he breaks the rules ("justice") that he imposes on the weak. What the weak call "justice" is really slavery, and no one truly strong would act that way.

In Book I, Socrates attempts to refute Thrasymachus. If the weak, after all, can prevent the strong from taking what they want or can prevent someone from becoming a tyrant, then they are the strong! Thrasymachus is finally quieted. At the beginning of Book II however, Socrates is told by Glaucon and the others that this was all too easy. They argue that anyone would be unjust, given the opportunity. For example, if someone found a ring that made him invisible, he would commit all sorts of selfish and unjust deeds, because he could get away with it. Furthermore, such an evil-doer would be happy as a result. And, everyone believes that injustice leads to happiness, if only one can get away with it.

I won’t go into it all here, but I’m wondering if Socrates actually on the wrong side of this argument. Maybe it is a dog-eat-dog world out there, and maybe we are all in it for ourselves. Of course, there are those I love that I would never harm, but is that an evolutionary trait that better provides for long term security and sustainability of the family, the clan, or the local community? Maybe I’m programmed to selflessly help those I love, and feed my ego with satisfaction from my good deeds?

That’s probably as close to “unjust” as I’ll ever get…