1G0xxeB

Happy City, Happy Citizens? The Common Good and the Private Good in Plato’s Republic2 0 5things that “men reputed to be happy” do (420a). They are, in short, deprivedof any semblance of a private life and live solely for the city. 10 Are they not,then, wretched?Socrates provides a twofold response to this accusation. In the first place,he says that “it wouldn’t be surprising if these men, as they are, are also happiest”(420b). He does not elaborate on this claim, however, because he says,in the second place, that the specific happiness of the guardians has not beentheir concern: “in founding the city we are not looking to the exceptionalhappiness of any one group among us but, as far as possible, that of the city asa whole,” because it is by crafting such a city that he and his interlocutors willbest be able to discover their primary object—the nature of justice (420b–c).He then goes on to explain that Adeimantus’s objection is misguided, becauseno class in the city, and especially not the guardians, should be allowed anykind of happiness that would make its members fail to do their jobs for thecity, and the kind of happiness implicit in Adeimantus’s objection—namely,a happiness that centers on private, material gratification by means of wealthand luxuries—would do just that (420d–421c).Socrates initially illustrates his meaning by an analogy:Just as if we were painting statues and someone came up and began toblame us, saying that we weren’t putting the fairest colors on the fairestparts of the animal—for the eyes, which are fairest, had not beenpainted purple but black—we would seem to make a sensible apologyto him by saying: “You surprising man, don’t suppose we ought topaint the eyes so fair that they don’t even look like eyes, and the samefor the other parts; but observe whether, assigning what’s suitable toeach of them, we make the whole fair. So now too, don’t compel us toattach to the guardians a happiness that will turn them into everythingexcept guardians.” (420c–d)Thus, just as painting (the pupil of) an eye purple would cause it to cease toresemble an eye, just so giving to the guardians the kind of happiness implicitin Adeimantus’s objection would cause them to cease to be guardians of thecity (as already asserted at 416a–c). Indeed, Socrates goes on to say that itwould corrupt any of the city’s classes were they given this sort of happiness.If craftsmen, farmers, or guardians were treated to a life of luxuries, feasts,and material gratifications, and asked to work only “at their pleasure,” they10While it is true that the guardians will be taught to believe that their own well-being dependsentirely upon the well-being of the city (see 412c–414a), no argument is supplied there or elsewherefor this questionable claim. Thus, however much concern for the common good had been guiding thediscussion, the private good of the citizens had hardly been considered.