Paste Freedom is Slavery. This is the slogan of the totalitarian regime that governed a dystopian version of our present-day society. In George Orwell’s 1984, this statement was used to convince citizens that blindly relinquishing freedom to members of authority was vital to both the societal and individual good. Otherwise, they would be “slaves” to their desires and pursuits. In reality, it facilitated the ideological control of the citizens coveted by top authorities. Twentieth-century philosophers, notably Karl Popper, charged Plato with the responsibility of providing the foundation upon which totalitarian regimes, such as this one in 1984, would originate. The accusation that the Republic of Plato mirrors the obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and breach of moral conduct characteristic of totalitarian regimes is false. The confusion arises from the justifications advocated by the regime in 1984 which mimic the arguments supporting the concept positive liberty; the type of liberty under which Plato’s society existed. However, 1984 is a society under positive liberty that is morally wrong due to its restriction on freedom of thought, alienation of the individual and the absence of accountability. Plato’s Republic does not display this breach of moral conduct and is, therefore, a distinct entity from totalitarian regimes.
In the devising his Republic, Plato’s main concern was the injustice of the soul that arose from an imbalance in its three parts: the appetitive, associated with temperance; the spirited, associated with courage; and the rational, associated with wisdom. Plato created a structured society that emphasized self-control. Each individual could achieve fulfillment by serving his function, which simultaneously allowed the society to thrive as a whole.
According to Isaiah Berlin in his essay entitled Two Concepts of Liberty, “the ‘positive’ sense of the word ‘liberty’ derives from the wish on the part of the individual to be his own master”. Champions of positive liberty value collectivity and believe that a certain level of control is essential for both a society and the individual to act rationally and to reach their potentiality. It is important to note that Berlin himself was a champion of negative liberty. Negative liberty refers to the absence of constraint (Berlin). Berlin argues that the establishment of a society where all of the ideals pursued by humans —liberty, justice, truth, happiness, etc. — coexist in perfect harmony, such as in Plato’s Republic, is impossible. His concern was that the quest for societal and individual self-perfection would lead to the foregoing of certain necessary freedoms and the development of a regime where the notion of freedom is tainted. This problem materializes in Orwell’s 1984. The slogan “Freedom is Slavery” serves as a facade to veil the government’s actual purpose: to reduce citizens to the level of compliant children.
In the first place, the tyrannical government in Orwell’s 1984, referred to as “The Party”, restricted freedom of thought by creating a language that made the expression of unorthodox opinions nearly impossible. Words like “freedom”, “democracy” and “justice” were contained within a single word: “crimethink”. Individuals were expunged from the existence and of the meaning of those words to repress their ability to form and justify critical thoughts (Orwell 323).
The party justifies its actions by vague claims asserting that the previous democratic system led to societal dysfunction and poverty. However, citizens are deprived of the ability to judge for themselves the accuracy of the party’s claims and risk being forced to live in a society where they are inherently worse off but cannot defend themselves. From the consequentialist point of view, this restriction on freedom of thought is morally wrong because it has negative consequences for the individual. These restrictions are also morally wrong from a virtue ethicist’s standpoint because they limit a person’s ability to reach his true potentiality and fulfillment as an autonomous, rational human being.
Similarly, Marx believed that freedom required a societal structure that “explicitly limits the freedom of the capitalists to exploit workers, but gives workers the opportunity to develop as human beings.” (“Freedom”). In 1984, workers are dehumanized. Restrictions on communication alienated them from one another and from themselves. For instance, Winston reflects on how “It was curious that he seemed not merely to have lost the power of expressing himself, but even to have forgotten what it was he had originally intended to say” (Orwell 10). At the end of the novel, Winston loses his will to fight the totalitarian regime and submits. Therefore, from a Marxist point of view, this society is morally wrong. On the other hand, Plato devised a societal structure that strived for the self-perfection and the fulfillment of his citizens. The Republic is, therefore, morally justifiable from a Marxist point of view as well.
Plato’s entire approach to writing The Republic enabled him to present Socrates’ arguments, as well as his own, while responding directly to any counterclaims. In 1984, the slightest act of defiance resulted in death at the hands of the “thought-police” and a reduction to the status of “unperson” (Orwell 157). Contrarily, through the dialogue presented in The Republic of Plato, it is clear that Socrates welcomed criticism, questioning, and justification.
Berlin argues that under positive liberty, the entity in power must make decisions that individuals would have made for themselves had they the same level of rationality and wisdom (Berlin 24). In 1984, the Party makes use of excessive control without offering an authentic explanation for their actions, proving corruption. Contrarily, Plato gave citizens the chance to understand his universal definition of justice, and the societal and personal good arising from the structure of his just society. The rigorous training required of his philosopher kings shows that he had the highest regard for the transmission of wisdom. Therefore, his restrictions are morally justifiable.
Nevertheless, there is evidence of hypocrisy. Although Plato does offer each individual the chance to prove their potentiality to become philosopher-kings, once an individual is classified as being governed by the appetitive part of his soul, this individual is inherently left to his own devices and to submit to his superficial desires. These individuals are risk becoming slaves to what Berlin refers to as their ‘lower’ nature, which lacks the self-discipline and reason to distinguish between immediate pleasures and the pursuit of personal goals that will lead to long-term fulfillment (Berlin). Berlin believed that controlling measures are only acceptable should they lead to the ability of the individual to become his own master. Aristotle also agreed that by pursuing “apparent goods” (associated with pleasure-seeking desires) rather than “actual goods” (which lead to true happiness), individuals would be unable to achieve the purpose of human life, which Aristotle considered to be eudaemonia, meaning happiness or human flourishing (“Aristotle”). By neglecting the members of his lower class, Plato can be accused of abusing the power, from both Berlin’s and Aristotle’s standpoints.
As an objection to this accusation, it must be noted that Plato believed those workers didn’t have the innate aspirations to see the same level of fulfillment as his Guardians or Philosopher Kings. Even though their lifestyle allowed them to be more overcome by their desires than those of other classes, they are still vital members of society that are given ample opportunity to find meaning in their work and to reach their unique level of fulfillment.
Still, as Karl Popper prominently argued, Plato’s Republic is ruled by one leader that holds all of the political power. Citizens exist to serve their function in society (“Plato’s Republic: Just Society or Totalitarian State?”). According to him, this regime must be totalitarian. However, as Thomas Landon Thorson pointed out in his Plato: Totalitarian or Democrat, Plato distinguishes himself from totalitarianism because he followed natural law. (“Plato’s Republic: Just Society or Totalitarian State?”).
Natural law encompasses moral and ethical universal standards, which were determined through reason (“Natural Law”). Plato and his philosophers hold themselves accountable to natural law and to an absolute standard of justice.This accountability is just as nonexistent in 1984 as in communist North Korea and Nazi Germany. Any reference to the idea of justice from one of those regimes would serve only as an excuse or as a tool of manipulation. Plato rationalized, argued, supported extensively his pursuit of the universal definition of justice and the proper way to enforce it. That level of critical thinking is not seen in the other totalitarian regimes. Plato proclaims that “a just and healthy person is governed by knowledge and reason [and must be] under the control of society’s most cultivated and best-informed minds.” (Plato 44). Plato didn’t prioritize political power; his pursuit of justice, of wisdom, and of fulfillment merely led to its requirement.
The second fundamental way by which the citizens in 1984 are controlled is that they possess very limited knowledge of the world around them. This knowledge has been manipulated and engineered by the Party to ensure their submission. While Plato does make use of censorship in his Republic, he does so to shield his citizens from the confusion that can arise from information that contradicts the cardinal virtues. The government finds power in controlling the truth and promoting misinformation. For example, every day, citizens take part in “Two Minutes of Hate” where they are united by a common hatred for supposed traitors. However, the citizens ignore the absence of legitimate fact to justify this hatred.
According to Berlin, restraint is only acceptable when it enables the individual to become the best, most autonomous version of himself (Berlin 23). An individual that does not have access to unbiased knowledge is not an individual that can develop wisdom, make rational decisions and reach fulfillment. Therefore, the level of restraint imposed by the Party infringes upon the rights of citizens.
However, Berlin states:
“To protest against the laws governing censorship […] presupposes a belief that the activities which such laws forbid are fundamental needs of men as men, in a good society. To defend such laws is to hold that these needs are not essential, or that they cannot be satisfied without sacrificing other values which come higher” (Berlin 32).
Plato made use of censorship solely to promote the ideals that would ultimately lead to both individual and societal fulfillment. For instance, he states “We also want them to be brave. So the stories they hear should be such as to make them unafraid of death” (Plato 76). Therefore, as supported by Berlin’s statement, Plato’s laws are morally justifiable because they are essential to achieving harmony in the soul, which is a value that comes higher than literary knowledge.
Plato’s objective is to create a form of education that achieves harmonious order within the soul and within the society (Plato 88). This achievement would have purely beneficial consequences. Thus, from both a deontological and consequentialist perspective, this form of censorship is morally justifiable.
In conclusion, a society restricting human liberties is morally wrong when it represses the formulation of rational thought, dehumanizes its citizens and limits their potentiality. This obstruction of freedom is characteristic of totalitarian regimes. Berlin himself states that the triumph of despotism is when the slaves proclaim their freedom in the most sincere way (Berlin 22). The support of the slogan “Freedom is Slavery” by the majority citizens in Orwell’s 1984 exposes the regime as despotism. By contrast, the rulers of Plato’s republic adhere to the Natural Law and seek both societal, and individual, harmony alike. Plato’s Republic is, therefore, a distinct entity from totalitarian regimes
The accusation that Plato’s society is a totalitarian regime overshadows the true issue: that it is not a realistic regime for today’s society. Plato’s Republic seeks a level of perfection that isn’t attainable within the dynamic and changing world of today. It requires a static environment where citizens naturally desire to fulfill their designated roles and where everything unfolds as predicted by Plato. However, Plato neglected the power that emotion can have over the individual; worker, guardian, philosopher alike. Plato didn’t account for the need for self-discovery, the desire for change, or the popularization of the notion of relative truth; which are of importance to most of today’s citizens. Totalitarian regimes represent a failed understanding of Plato’s idea of self-fulfillment through restraint. These regimes lead to corruption due to ignorance of the wisdom behind Plato’s society and the inability of officials to resist the desire for ultimate power. This negligence justifies Plato decision to accord power solely to his philosopher kings.
Word Count: 2001