"Plato's Republic" begins and ends with a discussion of justice. In fact, most of the book follows dialectic between Socrates and interlocutors on the nature and proper implementation of justice. A central element of this dialectic is the question of whether or not justice is an intrinsic good or if it is simply good because of its consequences or social externalities. In order to further the argument that justice is good on its own terms and not simply because of its consequences, Plato develops a model of justice in the city and a model of justice in the soul, the latter of which depending on the former. Plato also dedicates a significant amount of time to identifying very specifically the things that would make the city most harmonious and those that would most jeopardize this harmony because he defines justice in the city as harmony and unity. That is, he claims that a harmonious city with a coherent and well-functioning body politic is by nature just. This claim I do not dispute. Rather, I dispute Plato's logic that "noble " (93) social principles aimed at shaping the souls of citizens of the city are responsible or even necessary to effect this justice of harmony. .
Moreover, it is likely that Plato's city is harmonious and thereby just simply because of the political pragmatism that results from a regime, aristocracy, that is structured in such a way that hierarchy leverages the self-interest of individuals in different classes and ensures that individuals from each class have the freedom to practice the craft for which they are best suited. .
In order to analyze Plato's logic regarding justice in his aristocracy, the reader's first task is to separate "noble " social principles aimed at shaping the soul of citizens from elements of political organization that are not meant to do so. It may be helpful in this endeavor to consider the two distinct roles that Plato adopts in planning the various aspects of his aristocracy "that of de facto psychologist and that of de facto political scientist.
