The Platonic Ideal Globalized:

Plato’s Theory of Justice and International Hegemony

Joshua Mills-Knutsen, University of Kentucky

Extrapolating from Plato’s theory of justice put forward in the Republic, I will argue that a Platonic conception of Global Justice would support a unipolar hegemonic international regime. I will further argue that the United States is the country best suited to fulfill the role of Philosopher-king on the global level. Instead of merely deeming United States hegemony just from a Platonic mindset, I will rather use the above analysis as a via negativa to understand better the contemporary notion of the phrase “Global Justice.” This investigation will yield two results. First, Plato’s conception of justice appears to deny the contemporary reliance on respect for autonomy as a cornerstone of justice. This leads to the second, and by far most important result of the paper, namely that respect for autonomy introduces a tension both at the level of praxis (what ought to be done to achieve Global Justice) and at the level of theory (Global Justice implies a sort of ethical hegemony that from a contemporary mindset precludes hegemony). Plato’s theory is not troubled with these tensions, since the Platonic faith in a first principle subordinates all other concerns to the achievement of that principle. The questions that arise from this paper are threefold. First, is it possible to adopt a theory of Global Justice without reference to a hegemonic first principle? Second, does such a principle underscore our contemporary mindset? And third, if such a principle exists, does it escape the demand for hegemony that underscores Plato’s theory?