Comparing Plato And Iris Young's 'The Myth Of Merit'

Plato and Iris Young have different perspectives on justice. Plato argues that justice is doing one's own work for which one is best suited for, and not to meddle with other's work outside your class. Iris Young through her "The Myth of Merit" argues that a society in which equal opportunity exists is just. I reject Plato's view, and I side with Iris Young for reasons she does not explicitly mention. In the Republic, Plato gives an extensive theory of justice. Three classes exist, rulers (legislators/deliberates), auxilaries (enforcers), and producers. What God has mixed into one's own soul decides, whether it is gold, silver, or iron/bronze, decides what class one belong's in. Each one of these classes has the potential to best develop a

Plato asserts that when these virtues work together and no meddling occurs from class to class, the city will be harmonious, united, and just (Reeve 120). Plato's theory can be visualized by Norman O. Dahls interpretation of justice, which relies on the existence of innate inequality among humans. Dahl agrees that "Plato's defense of justice falls into two parts. First he gives an account of the nature of justice. Then he argues that, given this account, a person will be better off just than unjust" (Dahl 811). The nature of justice Dahl is referring to is everyone playing their own role in society. "Justice occurs when each of these parts properly performs its own function, not interfering with the functions of the other parts" (Dahl 811). In other word's if meddling were to occur from class to class, justice would not be served. An example of meddling would be, if a citizen from the producer class were to rise up and rule the kingdom. Plato and Dahl would consider this unjust, because they would argue that the citizen from the producer class is not born with the talent, gift, wisdom, nor education to be able to be in the ruling class. It is his duty to work as a producer, farmer,

I believe this because a good amount of positives can result in a society where equal opportunity exists. An individual can achieve greatness. One can be in poverty and become wealthy through hard work, determination, faith, and knowledge. A movie "The Pursuit of Happyness" with actor Will Smith supports my argument. In The Pursuit of Happyness "a man named Christopher Gardner (Will Smith) invested all he had in a bone scanning device. He made these devices, but they were not selling. As he tries selling them, his wife leaves him, he loses his house, his bank account, and credit cards. For a good period of time he was forced to live out in the streets with his son. However, Gardner was quite intellegient. He ended up until earning a job as a stockbroker. Unfortunately, until he was able to receive pay he had to train for half a year. Until then he had to try and to sell his devices" (2006). This was a perfect example of someone who had nothing, and eventually had a great job, becoming successful. This would not be able to happen in through Plato's eyes. I believe meddling can be very good. "The rulers and auxilaries are not able to have any private property, or any form of wealth. The producers are the only class that can own land, and have currency" (Reeve 106). The producers basically take care of the needs of the other two classes. I know if I were a producer, I would eventually get