The ‘Republic’ is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato around 380 BCE (19 years after Socrates was executed). It is a philosophical treatise on ethics, morality and political theory amongst other timeless questions which have significance and influence in every age and society. In Books I and II, Socrates discusses the meaning of justice during a lively and heated argument with Thrasymachus, Glaucon, Adeimantus and others. One of the points raised is whether to live an unjust life is better than to live a just one. Prima facie, the answer to this seems obvious. However, I am going to place this in the context of today’s world and argue in favour of living an unjust life.

Theoretically living a just life is better, ethically and morally. However, that may be true only in an ideal society as envisaged by Socrates, the great thinker. We live in modern times, and one has to adapt and modify ancient philosophical teachings accordingly. In order to be successful, one cannot afford to be bound by rigid walls of what is just and unjust. It will be my attempt to show that in the context of the modern world it is better to lead an unjust life than a just one. I will examine the material and moral implications of this point of view and also address the objections some of my readers may raise against my argument.

Early in Book I, we have Thrasymachus make two statements –“I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.” (Book I Page 14, 338c), and that it is “……the advantage of the established rule”. (Book I page 15, 339a). History is witness that this is true. Through the ages, kings and emperors have acquired land, wealth and power through unjust means. But once attained, albeit unjustly, these riches and power have been used for making lives of the multitudes better. In India, for example, Akbar the Great waged wars and subjugated neighbouring kingdoms. The immense wealth and power he acquired was used not only to maintain an opulent Court, but also to build enduring architectural marvelslike Agra Fort and Fatehpur Sikri. He also extended patronage to art and culture and to the “Nine Jewels” of his Court. Various reforms in judiciary and revenue collection for ‘just’ administration and the welfare of his subjects were put into place. Another example is of the British who got a foothold in India through the unjust trading practices of the East India Company. The British may have used unjust means to colonise India, but they then used their superior knowledge and resources to bring about improvements in transportation, communication and education systems. Besides construction of impressive buildings like India Gate, Parliament House and RashtrapatiBhawan, to name a few, reformatory laws for women for abolishingSati and child marriage were also passed during this time.

The cut-throat competitive world of business is the best illustration of Glaucon’s statement that the Unjust who appears Just “gets the better of his antagonists, and gains at their expense, and is rich, and out of his gains he can benefit his friends….”. (Book II 50-51,362)Multi-million dollar corporate houses routinely decimate their smaller competitors in unjust hostile takeovers. Their increased revenues not only earn their Board of Directors handsome profits but the smallest share-holder too receives increased returns. Their thousands or lakhs of employees also benefit from infrastructures like housing colonies, schools and hospitals built specially for their use. Many corporates funds charities, adopt villages and perform other CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) activities. So, their use of harsh/unjust means to build their profits leads to a better life for so many people.

Socrates may say “injustice is never more profitable than justice.” (Book I Page 31 354a)But in the recent past, in India itself, we have live examples of men who, when they perceived themselves to be in a situation whereby they can profit and lead a good life, have chosen unjust measures to ensure that profit. Such men do not even care for the ‘appearance of being just’. Take examples of Vijay Malaya, Lalit Modi, Nirav Modi and many others – they are all unjust men, having fled the country after duping the banks and taking the hard-earned savings of thousands of Indians. Before fleeing they all accumulated wealth and transferred it to foreign bank accounts. Did they feel any remorse for looting the hardworking people of their country? No. Are they happy and enjoying their wealth secured by unjust means? Yes.

For philosophical argument’s sake,Socrates’ discourses about justice and just life being more virtuous and good are fine and correct, but in today’s life a just man will only talk virtuously, remain a pauper, discontent and subjugated, whilst an unjust man, even though knowingly leading an unjust life, will be enjoying a full and content life.

In today’s world, it is seen that an unjust man leading an unjust life becomes adept at concealing his injustice under the guise of justice – and the rewards are great – he can enjoy the fruits of his unjust life as well as enjoy the reputation of being a just man. Thus, a man leading an unjust life profits both from the injustice and the “appearance” of justice. Even though this person knows that he is unjust, he is happily unjust because he is enjoying this life to the fullest.

There is no doubt in my mind that the example of “Ring of Gyges”, given by Glaucon to Socrates to establish his point, is very true in our lives – an unjust man will behave unjustly, whilst a just man, having been given the opportunity to become invisible and do whatever he wants, will behave unjustly. Even though Socrates argues that justice is a virtue, whatever the circumstances, Glaucon, very correctly, brings out, quoting the example of the shepherd in the story, that it is more rewarding for the unjust man, reaping the benefits of injustice, to “appear” to be just, thereby incurring the honours and reputations consequent upon the “appearance” of justice.This is what Glaucon means when he says of the perfectly unjust man, “…...he must be one who can speak with effect; if any of his deeds come to light, and who can force his way where force is required by his courage and strength, and command of money and friends.” (Book II Page 49 361).

Most of our country’s politicians too seem to follow Adeimantus when he says, “No one has ever blamed injustice or praised justice except for the view to the glories, honours, and benefits which flows from them.” (Book II page 56 366). With unjust and corrupt means, they ferret government money into their personal pockets and spend a little of that on charity or on vote-giving public to show that they are very ‘just’ and they and their followers continue to enjoy the good life of their high office.

           All the above instances amply demonstrate my support of the argument that it is better to live an unjust life than a just one as it leads one to gain materially and enjoy both worldly comforts and an elevated social standing. One can then help not only one’s friends and family but also contribute towards alleviating the problems of those less fortunate. One has to be honest and face the unpalatable truth as stated by Thrasymachus, “a just man always gets less than an unjust one.” (Book I page 19 343d). Here I would like to bring out the fate of some of the “just people” of our country in recent times – the seekers of truth, RTI activists, renowned writers and rationalists like Gauri Lankesh, MM Kalburgi, Govind Pansare, Narendra Dabholkar – to name a few. All were killed. Did they or their loved ones gain anything from their living a Just life?

Some of my readers may be upset by my apparently cynical and materialistic views.  “It is morally and ethically wrong to be unjust”. “Our religion forbids us from being unjust,” they may say. They may quote Socrates too, when he says “…...justice is a soul’s virtue, and injustice it’s vice.” (Book I page 31 353e). However, I feel one has to keep things in perspective. I am a part of Gen Y, eager to conquer the world on the basis of my own capabilities and enthusiasm. I believe this is one short life we have to live and we must make the most of what we have been given. So, my way of thinking may perhaps be a bit scandalous but it is honest.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that in today’s world one cannot afford to forgo life’s opportunities. There is no point living a just life and being miserable. It is better to live an unjust life if it is the means to reach, nay, surpass one’s potential to do well for oneself and others. This, I feel, is the realistic and practical way to move forward.