It's been said that ignorance is bliss, because when the unjust remain ignorant of the nature of their acts, they can be happy. But the deliberate unjust seek temporary and selfish satisfaction sowing seeds of strife with others and abide with the knowledge of the harm that they do. We have conscience and laws to answer to. Where either is lacking, injustice thrives. Some are of the mind that appearances and self satisfaction are enough to be happy in life. Others believe that freedom to act within our personal rights is a greater good than justice for all. When we are shown to be self serving, we may be just if it does no harm to anyone, but where these interests compete, the greater good must be determined and must prevail for society to function. Individual interests do not a happy society make.
The more injustice a society has injected into it, the unhappier it becomes for all. I believe the unjust man is not ultimately happy. The actions of the unjust create suffering for the just and the unjust alike. Suffering injustice leads the unjust to become so. The unjust do not trust others or situations enough to be just or believe that being just is going to bring happiness. I believe that the unjust experience happiness in a selfish and temporary way. The unjust seek personal ends, but have a kind of contempt and distrust for their fellow man. Their actions may provide temporary gains to themselves, but would not make for the most happy circumstances necessary to constitute a happy life. Their actions take away from happiness in society.
Socrates asked if the just compete with the just, and Glaucon determined that they do not. So the just can abide with the just, and increase harmony, or happiness for a society. He also then postulated that the unjust will compete with the unjust or the just, the same. This part of Socrates reasoning resonates with me as key to understanding how competing interests create strife. I think it's important to consider that "The Republic" is utopian theory, or a view toward a perfect society.
I think that the views of Socrates are not flawed, but are inconclusive. Socrates does not offer perfect reasoning, but reasoning can never be perfect because nature is not consistent. Instead, he provides a framework with several ways of viewing what can be considered best practices. He is correct in that to be just and to have the knowledge that one is just is beneficial to many in the most circumstances, and creates the most good relations in society, which in turn leads to the most possible "net" happiness. Even if our "gross" actions are thought unjust by some, we can gain personal satisfaction and happiness knowing we did our best to do the right thing. However, this personal satisfaction must not be the goal of the just, as that gives no thought to the benefit to society, or what is for the good of the whole. What others perceive is relative to their position on the matters at hand. Thus we are presented with the Allegory of the Cave.
The Allegory of the Cave holds much relevance to society today. Particularly American society, where we are now each exposed to so much of the same things through the media. Our reality is subverted in this way, but few pause to consider the implications. We must remain alert to things that would chain us to concepts, ideas, conclusions about ourselves, each other, and about the world. When thinking becomes outdated and no longer useful, or worse, harmful to our fate, it's because we fail to consider the nature of things from a different perspective. We do things how they've always been done. We stick with ideas that we are taught by our parents and grandparents. We vote the same way our neighbors vote. We believe things because of popular sources, not because of the substance. When crisis comes, do we have the capacity to solve problems, or might our “little world” shatter because we cannot think outside the box?
No comments:
Post a Comment