Plato vs. Pandemic

We are currently in a state of International Emergency. As I am recording this, approximately 10 Million people have been infected by the coronavirus. The death toll has been at half a million and approximately 5 Million people have recovered from the virus. Sounds like a movie plot, doesn’t it? It feels like that World War Z sequel we begged for but never got. However, it’s reality and we have to deal with that. But has the pandemic been the world’s only concern at the moment? I know the last episode was on the republic and I've been asked multiple times when I am coming out with the episode on the sixth and the seventh book. Yes, I am currently working on those episodes. However, I felt the need to explore a topic relating to the pandemic and this being a philosophy podcast, I saw the potential in a concept episode, which might just become a series of concept episodes, that will help us understand what philosophy can teach us about the most unpredictable of situations, like this pandemic. Actually, I do intend on launching a series of concept episodes where I dive into various nuances of philosophy and make it more interesting than just reading a book and analysing the philosophies within it. That is interesting, but the whole idea of this podcast is to embrace philosophy as not only a subject, but also as way of life. Just like me, I would love for my listeners to adopt philosophy as their philosophy of life. Let's get into it.

With the revival of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement in America, the Indo-China historic clash off, the onset of the 2020 US elections, Russia’s oil spill, humanitarian crises in the MENA region, etc. There’s a consensus on this year being the worst one of all time. However, the world has seen a multitude of Pandemics till date, some even severe enough to kill about 75-200 million people like the Black Death. However, the one that strikes me as intriguing has to be the Plague of Athens, which occurred during the Peloponnesian war from 430 BC – 426 BC. It ended up killing approximately 25% of Athens’ population. A plague in the middle of a war is exactly how the COVID-19 pandemic feels like. But, what are we at war with? Is it some other country, the government, the environment or ourselves? The Indo-China clash off says that we’re at war with a country, the BLM movement dictates that we’re at war with society and the government. The virus is dragging our focus towards our environment. The newfound woke culture, on the other end, wants us to pick up our social arms against the ignorant section of the society. Some of you might even begin to wonder: “which war is my war?” A perfect, or rather a utopian citizen, would take every war to be a personal one if it leads to a more just, courageous, moderate and wise society. Where did these adjectives come from? If you go back to my podcast, you will see that these are the exact adjectives that Plato, or rather Socrates, used to describe the ideal city; the utopian society. However, even though the utopian citizen would find all wars for the aforementioned purposes quite relevant and worth fighting for, they might find it logistically impractical to fight all wars simultaneously.

As today’s society seems to be quite a follower of books written a couple of millennia ago, one could suggest Plato to be a guide for the wars going on currently and for wars to come. Plato, who writes about his teacher Socrates, may be equipped with the right information to extend an olive branch to today’s world. Socrates had personally served in the war and had been one of the few survivors of the Plague of Athens. A war veteran, a plague survivor and the most influential philosopher of all time must be an appropriate source of information. This is especially true when it comes to his appearance in Plato’s Republic. Historically subtitled as “On Justice,” the Republic draws one of the most influential opinions on Justice on an individual and societal level.

The Republic is set in around 400 BC, where Socrates along with his friends, namely Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, Cephalus, and Adeimantus starts a conversation on the supper table at Polemarchus’ place. The setting of the book has, itself, received quite a lot of admiration from scholars. The setting is something like this: Socrates, with his friends, is sitting inside this hut, right outside which the whole of Athens is paying its sacrifices to the new goddess Bendis. This comes as quite shocking to many people considering that Socrates was actually going to pay his respects to Bendis but at the same time he was sentenced to death for being an atheist at a later date. You see the misinformation being spread around? The society of that day and age was also facing the plague like us. No, not the viral plague but a plague of misguidance. Even today’s leaders misguide the public into believing something that might not be true. Surprisingly, Plato was one of the first political philosophers to visit this subject which can also be called demagoguery. He warned us about the rise of the demagogue as a consequence of democracy and using that premise, he gave us his ideal government type: Aristocracy, which loosely means the rule of the best according to the ancient greeks. But, who are demagogues? A demagogue is this toxic leader in a democracy that exploits their people’s emotions, feelings, prejudice and history to gain popular support. Find out more about this in the upcoming episodes in the Plato and Socrates series.

Now, coming back to the issue at hand, there are 5 definitions of Justice that are presented in the first two books of the Republic but 4 out of those 5 are brought down by Socrates using his infamous Socratic Method. However, as the 5th definition, comfortably the last one too, is presented by Socrates himself, he barely faces any backlash from the other philosophers with whom he is discussing this controversial topic of Justice. For a more detailed discussion on this, visit the third, fourth and fifth episodes of my podcast.

The first definition of Justice that we come across is offered by Cephalus, who has further taken it from a poet, Simonides: “to give back what is owed is just” and the second one by Polemarchus when he says, “Justice is the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies.” Historically, Socrates’ argument against these two definitions has been taken to reign supreme. However, in this Pandemic, these definitions might offer some direction on how Justice must be done. This is what we are here to discuss, aren’t we: how will Plato help us fight the Pandemic?

A multitude of employers, at the beginning of the Pandemic, paid the salaries to their employees on the basis of the work that they had done in the previous month. So, the salary for February was paid at the beginning of March and for countries that were open till the end of March, employers paid the employees till the end of March, the logical progression, basically. The definition of Justice offered by Cephalus fits here (to give back what is owed is just). It is not ubiquitous, but does help define a certain sphere of Justice: Financial. Giving back what is owed is financially just during this pandemic. Even apart from the pandemic, a majority of organisations have a system of variable salaries, which are dependant upon the employee’s performance. If an employee achieves a great deal during a financial year, the organisation would owe them a higher variable salary. This is, in fact, a form of Financial Justice.

Due to the Pandemic, on the other hand, many employees have faced cutbacks in salaries and some were even laid off. However, a majority of them, especially those employed by individual employers, like domestic help, have received some sort of aid, financially, to sustain themselves through unemployment. For example, many people have paid their domestic help an extra salary of one month to help them out. This is a way to aid employees. Aid can also be referred to as help. Similarly, on the other end of the spectrum, those who weren’t being the ideal employees have witnessed an awful time as their employers have found a way to exploit this situation and take out any grudges that they might have had. Grudges might also correspond to being harmed. This corresponds to the definition by Polemarchus: to help out friends and to harm enemies is Justice. Let’s take another example, a much longer one. Let’s talk about the Legal system. The whole legal system works on the principle of punishment. The victim seeks revenge through the legal system and ultimately inflicts harm upon the defendant. When a victim takes the matter in its own hands and tries to seek revenge, by inflicting harm, from the defendant, it is termed as injustice. However, when the legal system evaluates a crime and aids the victim in its pursuit for revenge from the defendant, it is termed as Justice. Therefore, the legal system, the system that is now the harbinger of justice acts in a manner that it appears to be more of a revenge system rather than an actual legal system. So, now that we have two examples that help us show us that Justice has been reduced to nothing but harming one’s enemies and helping one’s friends, let’s try to redefine this definition that was supposed to be a ubiquitous definition of Justice. Considering that this definition pertains to a more interpersonal sphere and deals with people on a one-on-one basis, we can term it as Interpersonal Justice.

The third definition of Justice offered in the book might be a bit tricky to place. Thrasymachus, laying down the 3rd and the most controversial definition, says that Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger. The explanations he gives for this do seem to be logical:

1. Stronger and influential people consciously and repeatedly fail to pay taxes;

2. The unjust partners in an economic transaction end up with more than the just partners;

3. And the unjust, by seeking corruption, help out their close ones and even help out the public ever so often when they take office.

This type of Justice might seem like a trademark of the 21st Century, but it has been there for multiple millennia, if you think about it. Bearing in mind that Thrasymachus is talking from a political view, he does present a more practical definition of Justice. This Pandemic has highlighted how the government and the influential members of the society concoct laws and regulations to advance their own agenda. Let me give you several examples: In Hungary, the prime minister can now rule by decree. In Britain, ministers have what a critic called “eye-watering” power to detain people and close borders. Israel’s prime minister has shut down courts and begun an intrusive surveillance of citizens. Chile has sent the military to public squares once occupied by protesters. Bolivia has postponed elections. Do you see what’s happening around the world? As people find it difficult to physically dissent, the governments, and especially individual leaders have taken matters into their own hands and have taken a good step towards authoritarianism. Some governments have been praised for their advancements in surveillance and other regulations of citizens. This clearly shows that the new justice, especially in the political sphere, now refers to the advantage of the government, or the advantage of the stronger. This definition might not be appropriate for every area where Justice might be required. However, it does fit the title of Political Justice.

The last definition offered before Socrates is by Glaucon and marks the beginning of a special area in political philosophy: The Social Contract. This definition comes in the second Book of the Republic and takes almost all of the second book. Glaucon and Adeimantus collectively take on Socrates and some of their affirmations do come across as deep psychological analyses of people around them. For example: they go on to say that if a person has a choice between being just an unjust, the person will always choose being unjust, as it brings more pleasure than being just. Glaucon even cites the example of the Ring of Gyges. They further talk about Justice and try to define it not by looking at what justice is perceived as today but rather why the concept of justice emerged in the first place. Glaucon states that the citizens of a city came under a social contract, of sorts, to not harm one another after realising that tolerating the harm from others is a bigger burden when compared to the pleasure one might gain by inflicting harm upon others. In this Pandemic, an interesting phenomenon takes place: our social contract with every person in the current scenario is to not be social. This serves as quite a satirical oxymoron. But, apart from that, if you think about this: the Pandemic begs us to not be social and we sign a completely imaginary contract with our fellow members of the society to not be social. Now, many people at various places in the world are not so happy with this arrangement. They feel like its encroaching upon their freedoms; some even go as far as saying that this virus is nothing but a plot by an opposing political regime. So, a piece of cloth has now been heavily politicised by many around the globe. What’s interesting to see is that the anti-mask parade has been launched mainly by right wingers. By the right wing, I mean those who lie on the right side of the political spectrum. Additionally, they are also, majorly, supporters of a more libertarian form of government. For context, those who align themselves on the right side of the economic spectrum believe that their countries’ property should be in the hands of the private owners and not the government. This also aligns with the concept of libertarianism which emphasises on the advancement of political freedom, preaches freewill and freedom of choice. So, the libertarian capitalists are mostly the ones going against the fact that there is a pandemic out there. One reason for this could also stem from the fact that they’re so shocked that they just simply don’t believe it. Their state of denial makes them noncompliant to the basic social courtesies during such a time period. So, this is a type of Justice. How, you ask? Well, these people, by not staying inside, while science dictates them to, are breaking their social contract with other people of the society. This further leads to a question: why should others care about their end of the bargain if this unjust person didn’t. You see, this social contract is what’s keeping us from drifting into a state of anarchy. Therefore, by forfeiting logic and pursuing a path of personal belief, the people who oppose masks in today’s scenario are simply forfeiting their social contract and conducting injustice against the very people that they live with. Glaucon may have failed at providing us with an omnipresent definition of Justice. However, he did provide the definition for Social Justice: is a social contract that emerges between people who are roughly equal in power so no one is able to oppress the others since the pain of suffering injustice outweighs the benefit of committing it.

Let’s conclude here:

1. Financial Justice: To give back what is owed is financially just.

2. Interpersonal Justice: To help one’s friends and harm one’e enemies is interpersonal justice.

3. Political Justice: Political Justice is the advantage of the stronger (or the ruler)

4. Social Justice: is a social contract that emerges between people who are roughly equal in power so no one is able to oppress the others since the pain of suffering injustice outweighs the benefit of committing it.

The quest for a definition started thousands of years back and it will continue for many more years to come. However, we do mark The Republic as the beginning of major discussions in the field of Justice. The assumption that we might be able to find a ubiquitous definition of Justice might be quite absurd and we should at least consider the possibility of a fragmented definition of the most important phenomenon in Political Philosophy: Justice. The Pandemic has shown us that we might find a lot of wisdom and practical knowledge from the philosophical advancements of the world. Financial Justice will make us realise the logical burden of justice that falls upon employers to pay for the services that their employees are providing. Financial Justice aids in our war against our corporate giants and their ways of obtaining labour at low costs. Interpersonal Justice helps us recognise the peculiar form of Justice where we harm our enemies and help our friends, even when we fail to realise it, like firing that one annoying employee during the pandemic and providing relief to the domestic help during these unprecedented times. It aids in our war against the society and helps us punish those who are not only our enemies but also the enemies of humanity. Political Justice opens our eyes to the demagogues of the earth, the sneaky politicians and the flexible laws that allow the influential and the strong to extend their own agenda. It helps us fight the war against our governments and other countries that see it fit to encroach upon our territory. Social Justice helps us fight our war against the negligent section of society and win this war through not ammunition but rather plain logic, knowledge and humility. Maybe it’s not a war that we have to fight ourselves but rather a war that we need Plato to fight for us; a war between Plato and the Pandemic. Plato vs. Pandemic. Keep Philosophising with or without me and I’ll catch you guys in the next episode.