PHILOLOGY

“…what are we going to say if he asks next, isn’t piety the sort of thing that is just, and isn’t justice the sort of thing that is pious? Or is it the sort of thing which is not pious? Is piety the sort of thing to be not just, and therefore unjust, and justice impious? What are we going to say to him? Personally, I would answer both that justice is pious and piety is just, and I would give the same answer on your behalf…,that justice is the same thing as piety, or very similar, and most emphatically, that justice is the same kind of thing as piety, and piety as justice.” (Protagoras, 331b)

In this part of the dialogue Protagoras and Socrates argue about the nature of the relations between different virtues. While Socrates insists that all values are part of the same coin, and only differ in their prospective size, Protagoras holds the view that they are parts of a face, implying that one could live without eyesight or the ability to hear, resulting in the conclusion that one virtue can exist in an individual’s personality without the other being present. Socrates, who explains in the quote that justice and piety cannot exist without each other, believes that all virtues have to be present in order to produce each others’ forms and characteristics.

I believe that in order to excel in one of the virtues, a person has to be generally virtuous and posses also the qualities of the other virtuous. If we look at the cardinal virtues like justice, temperance, piety, courage and wisdom, we can easily conclude that there is no true justice possible without the other four and vice versa. If a judge does not have knowledge and wisdom to reach the necessary insight into a case, the temperance to control his emotions, while giving a sentence for a damnable crime, the courage to condemn the powerful of a nation just as the powerless, and does not fear that a superior power will ultimately hold him responsible for his decisions, then there is no justice in his decisions. If a man fights in a battle that is not promoting the good, like for example a  just cause, and if his actions are not accompanied by temperance, wisdom and piety, his courage will be the courage of a person who ultimately fights for destruction, his own and his society’s, as unjust actions void of goodness ultimately lead to destruction.

One could argue that oftentimes someone seems to display enormous piety by following the rites and even outdoes others of the same faith; or someone is known for his smart solutions and knowledge in a particular field, like a scientist who can develop new solutions for problems.
However, these examples are not covering the complexity of the topic. The person who diligently follows the requirements of his worship, but fails to apply justice and fairness to his decisions, is just formally following his religious duties, but fails to apply the concept of religion, which is to improve the life of himself and others by living a righteous life. A scientist, who agrees to develop a destructive device, like a nuclear bomb or a way of biological warfare, might display knowledge in his field of expertise, but does not show wisdom or justice, as he does not reflect on the potential outcome of his invention (that could one day even be directed at himself), neither does he consider, if his doings are just towards other human beings. In both cases the protagonists are therefore lacking in virtue and the virtue that is apparently displayed by them is not a virtue, but a form of behavior void of true virtue that only serves to cover up his true nature or to help him attain honors and wealth in this life. Therefore it becomes clear that one virtue cannot exist in a person in isolation and that a person, who excels in a particular virtue must have at least traces of other virtues as well to make the displayed virtue a true one.