What is Plato’s philosophy of peace, and

how does it compare to the early modern

school of thought?

Olav Sigmundstad. University of Oslo. Faculty of Law. The Right to Peace.

Autumn 2018.
Content

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 About Plato ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Thucydides’ Athenian thesis ............................................................................................ 3

2 PLATO’S PHILOSOPHY OF PEACE........................................................................ 4

2.1 The Origin of War ............................................................................................................ 4

2.2 The Goodness of Peace .................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Peace through law ............................................................................................................ 7

3 PLATO AND INTERNATIONALISM/COSMOPOLITANISM ............................. 8

3.1 The relation between city-states ....................................................................................... 9

3.2 Greeks and barbarians .................................................................................................... 11

4 AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO PEACE?................................................................... 12

5 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 14

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 16

i
1 Introduction
When writing about philosophy of peace, one can’t escape the profound influence of the early
modern philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704) and Immanuel
Kant (1724-1804). As Lidén and Syse write, these men represent “a crucial turning point in
early modern political philosophy”.1 But as they also point out, the philosophical question of
peace is ancient.2 Thoughts on war and peace pre-date the philosophers of the Enlightenment
with more than two millenniums. Some of the greatest minds in the Western intellectual tradi-
tion wrote extensively on the subject, and their philosophy became the foundation of much of
the medieval and early modern way of thinking. And the most significant of these great minds
was the Greek philosopher known as Plato.
Plato was not the first in the Western tradition to write about the morality of war and
peace (that was the Greek historian Thucydides) but he is certainly the most influential one.
Plato is by many considered the greatest thinker in the history of Western philosophy. The
great 20th century philosopher Alfred North Whitehead went as far as to say that the whole
European philosophical tradition “consists of a series of footnotes to Plato”.3 Every subse-
quent Western thinker has either directly or indirectly been influenced by him. It is therefore
interesting to compare his philosophy of peace to that of “the three greats” of early modern
political philosophy, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Immanuel Kant. These three laid the
foundation for modern philosophy of peace, and their thoughts are still reflected in the con-
temporary positions known as realism, internationalism and cosmopolitanism.4
In this paper I will analyse Plato’s philosophy of peace, while trying to answer some
fundamental questions. What is his philosophical standpoint when it comes to war and peace?
How does his philosophy differ from that of his predecessor, Thucydides? Does Plato believe
that peace is possible at all? Is it even preferable? Can it be accomplished through law? I will
continuously compare Plato’s thinking to that of Hobbes, Locke and Kant. What are the key
differences between Plato and these early modern philosophers? Are there any similarities?
How does his philosophy compare to the contemporary positions; realism, internationalism

1
Kristofer Lidén and Henrik Syse, «The Politics of Peace and Law», 24.
2
Ibid., 24.
3
Bryan Magee, Filosofi, 24.
4
Kristofer Lidén and Henrik Syse, «The Politics of Peace and Law», 23.

1
and cosmopolitanism? Is there any trace of the early modern idea of the individual’s right to
peace in his writings? And is Plato’s philosophy of peace still relevant today?

1.1 About Plato

Plato was born ca. 427 BC in Athens and died in 348 BC. He was the pupil of the great phi-
losopher Socrates and is part of the “Socratic” school of thought.5 In the early years of his life
Plato witnessed first-hand the devastation of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and
Sparta (431- 404 BC). He was therefore familiar with war and its impact upon a society, and
his political philosophy bears witness to this. War and conflict are important parts of Plato’s
philosophy.6And as always, when writing about war, one will also touch upon peace.
Plato’s political philosophy comes down to us mainly in two books, The Republic and
The Laws. They are both concerned with the establishment and organization of an ideal city.
Both texts are written as dialogues, a trademark of Plato. Since the books are written as dia-
logues between several participants, it’s often difficult to know which character – if any –
represents Plato’s own political standpoint. Unlike his great pupil Aristotle, Plato never clear-
ly states his own political preferences. His political thought is hidden inside these brilliant
dialogues, and it’s up to the reader to interpret them. This is what makes Plato’s writing so
intriguing, but it also makes it somewhat more difficult to analyse. In The Republic, it’s Pla-
to’s old mentor Socrates who does most of the talking, while in The Laws, it’s a man known
as “the Athenian Stranger”. It’s normal to attach Plato’s own political standpoint to these two
characters, and that’s also how I have chosen to interpret it.
The modern school of thought divides the term “peace” into two components; negative
peace, which is the absence of war, and positive peace, which is the presence of active coop-
eration between people and states.7 We find no such clear definition in Plato’s writing. He
nowhere gives a “consistent and unequivocal definition of peace”, as Lidén and Syse point
out.8 Plato writes extensively about the subject, but he does not try to define the term, as mod-
ern philosophers would do. It’s also important to point out that Plato doesn’t write about “in-
ternational” law. His focus is on the laws of his ideal city.

5
Bryan Magee, Filosofi, 24-26.
6
Henrik Syse, “The Platonic Roots of the Just War Doctrine”, 104n.
7
Cecilia M. Bailliet and Kjetil Mujezinovic Larsen, “Introduction”, 2-3.
8
Kristofer Lidén and Henrik Syse, «The Politics of Peace and Law», 24.

2
 Before turning my attention to the political philosophy of Plato, I will say something
about the man that preceded him, the Greek historian named Thucydides (460-395 BC). His
monumental History of the Peloponnesian War is often considered the first real reflection on
the moral basis for war and power.9 Plato’s entire political philosophy is in many ways a re-
sponse to the devastations of that war, and to the Athenians’ aggressive policy which caused
it.

1.2 Thucydides’ Athenian thesis

The most famous part of Thucydides’ History is the Athenian thesis on the moral basis of war.
Here the Athenians argue their right to expansion and empire by claiming that there are no
moral categories to the realm of international politics.10 From their point of view, there is
nothing morally “bad” or “wrong” in relations between states. As the Athenians tells their
adversaries:

“You know as well as we do that when talking on the human plane questions of justice only arise when
there is equal power to compel: in terms of practicality the dominant exact what they can and the weak
concede what they must….We believe it of the gods, and we know it of for sure for men, that under
some permanent compulsion of nature wherever they can rule, they will.”11

From the Athenians’ point of view, the strong and mighty simply take what they can, when
they can, and there is nothing morally wrong with that. War is simply a part of human nature.
In this regard, the Athenians’ present a view similar to that of Thomas Hobbes, who argued
that the natural condition of man (that is, the state of man without political organization)12
was a “condition of Warre of every one against every one.”13 From the Athenians’ point of
view, there is no law or moral that governs the conduct between states or men. This view
makes Thucydides, like Hobbes, a part of the “realistic” school of thought. As Syse and Lidén
write, the realists believe that “the lack of sovereign authority above the state leaves the rela-
tions between states as a state of nature, or anarchy, in which no laws abide...Political entities
such as the Greek city-state, the medieval kingdoms, and the modern state competed (or still

9
Thomas L. Pangle and Peter J. Ahrensonsdorf, Justice Among Nations, 13.
10
Ibid., 18.
11
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, V. 89, 105.
12
Angela Hobbs,”Plato on War”, 8.
13
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 91.

3
compete) for survival in a perpetual struggle of all against all.”14 This description is very fit-
ting for the Athenians’ claim in Thucydides’ history.15
In contrast to the cynical view on war and conflict presented in Thucydides’ History,
Plato gives us an altogether more idealistic outlook.

2 Plato’s philosophy of peace

2.1 The Origin of War
In The Republic, Plato examines the origin of war, and his conclusion is rather different to
that of Thucydides’ Athenians. In his study of the origin of cities, Plato envisages a kind of
pre-historical society living in complete harmony. Here the people will be “Drinking wine,
after their meals, wearing garlands on their heads, and singing praises to the gods, they will
live quite happily with one another. They will have no more children than they can afford, and
they will avoid poverty and war.”16 In this Hobbesian “natural state of man”, there is peace,
not war, between everyone. Plato therefor presents s view directly opposite view to Hobbes:
While the English philosopher believed that the natural state was one of war, Plato believes
it’s peaceful.
A reason for the difference between Plato and Hobbes may be their opposing views on
ethics and morality. To Hobbes, ethics are subjective. “Every one is governed by his own rea-
son”, he writes.17 In his view, there’s no universal answer to the question of right and wrong;
“there is no such Finus ultimus [ultimate aim] nor Summen Bonum, (greatest Good), as spo-
ken of in the Books of the old Morall Philosophers”.18 To Hobbes, humans differ widely in
their views on right and wrong, and without some kind of sovereign to resolve such differ-
ences, there can be no peace.19 In contrast, Plato believes, as the Socratic philosophers of
ancient Greece did, that ethics are objective. The virtues of a good life are common to all
men. There is a universal answer to the question of right and wrong, and through reason, man
can find this universal truth.20 Plato does not believe that there is “some permanent compul-

14
Kristofer Lidén and Henrik Syse, «The Politics of Peace and Law», 33.
15
Thucydides also presents different theories to that of the Athenian thesis, and it’s in no way certain that he
agreed with the Athenians’ view. Still, it seems that Thucydides accepts crucial aspects of their thesis. See
Pangle and Ahrensonsdorf, Justice Among Nations, “Chapter 1: Classical Realism”.
16
Plato, The Republic, II.372b-c.
17
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 91.
18
Ibid., 70.
19
Angela Hobbs, “Plato on War”, 8.
20
Arnfinn Stigen, Tenkningens Historie, 84-91.

4
sion of nature” which compels man to violence and power, as the Athenians claim in Thucyd-
ides’ History. Rather, he believes that the only natural impulse is reason. And reason dictates
peace, not war. Therefore, the natural state must be peaceful.21
In his view on the state of nature, Plato has much in common with John Locke. In Two
Treatises of Government (1689), Locke writes that a Law of Nature governs the natural state,
and he compares this law to man’s reason, which tells us that “no one ought to harm another
in his life, health, liberty or possessions…”22 Plato and Locke both believed that man’s reason
will preserve the peace in a stateless society. But Plato has an even more idealistic view on
this natural state than Locke, who believed that the natural condition would be one of unpre-
dictability and the formation of the state would be a great improvement.23 To Plato, the natu-
ral condition is the ideal condition.
This natural peace only exists in the first step of the city’s development, in what Plato
calls “the healthy city”.24 People will eventually want more than just the simple life. They
want what Plato calls “luxuries”. They want to “eat in comfort…lie on couches, eat of tables,
and have cooked dishes and desserts which people have today.”25 In other words, people want
a more advanced form of community. And this is where the trouble begins. As Plato writes,
“the territory which was originally adequate to feed the original population will no longer be
adequate.” And therefore, we will need to “carve ourselves a slice of our neighbours’ territo-
ry…And the next step will be war”. With this Plato says he has discovered “the origin of
war.” He then concludes that “War arises out of those things which are the commonest causes
of evil in cities, when evil does arise, both in private life and public life.” 26
We can take two important points out of Plato’s argument. The first is rather obvious:
The origin of war is evil. The second point is that war originates in the need of luxuries and
earthly pleasure. It’s a result of greed and acquisitiveness. As Plato writes in Phaedo; “all
wars are made to get money.”27 But these “luxuries”, as Plato calls them, are not really what

21
In this respect, Plato’s position is similar to that of the 18th century French philosoph Jean-Jaqcues Rousseau.
In Discourse on the Origin and the Foundation of Inequality Among Men he writes that, in the natural state,
man was “wandering in the forest without industry, without settled abode, without war, and without ties,
without any need of others of his kind and without desire to harm them”. (p. 160-161).
22
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 271.
23
Kristofer Lidén and Henrik Syse, «The Politics of Peace and Law», 29.
24
Plato, The Republic, II.372e.
25
Ibid., II.372d-e.
26
Ibid., II.373d-e.
27
Plato, Phaedo, 66c.

5
we would call luxuries. Rather, it’s the basic needs of civilization. Plato’s “luxurious city” is
an organized community of farmers, hunters, artists, poets, dancers and doctors. The origin of
war in Plato’s philosophy is therefore to be found in the establishment of the social and politi-
cal community – the “modern” state.28
The contrast to Hobbes is clear. The English philosopher believed that the only way to
avoid man’s natural tendency towards aggression was with “The mutual transferring of
Rights” to the state and sovereign.29 The state can, with the enactment of laws, force man to
co-exist in peace. To Hobbes, it was a choice between war or law. To Plato, it’s quite the op-
posite. To him, the choice is peace or civilization. Mankind can either live in simple gather-
ings without the “luxuries” of advanced civilization, or they can evolve into “modern” com-
munities – but then war will follow. As Angela Hobbs writes: “Whereas in Republic [book] II
war appears at first sight to be depicted as an inevitable part of civilization in the sense of
political art informed by the arts, for Hobbes civil society or the commonwealth is the only
conceivable solution to war.”30
This leads to a very interesting question: Does Plato believe that war is a necessary
part of any advanced human society? Is war an inevitable part of civilization, and therefore of
human existence? There is no conclusive answer to that question, but I think Plato has a posi-
tive outlook. The point is not whether war is inevitable or not, but rather that it’s not innate in
the human nature. War is a cultural, not a natural, phenomenon, and the desire for it must be
learned.31 This idea is also apparent in John Locke’s philosophy. As Reichberg point out, we
find in Locke’s philosophy the idea that “it is not natural for human beings to solve conflict
through use of armed force.”32 To Plato, as to Locke, man is in its nature peaceful.

2.2 The Goodness of Peace

We have seen that Plato believes in a natural peace in the pre-historical community. What is
then Plato’s thoughts on peace when the social and political community has been established?

28
This position is also similar to that of Rousseau. It is his opinion that, from the establishment of civil society,
“arose the National Wars, Battles, murders reprisals that make Nature tremble and shock”. (Discourse p.
179).
29
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 94.
30
Angela Hobbs, “Plato on War”, 8.
31
Ibid., 17.
32
Reichberg, Syse, Begby (eds.), The Ethics of War, 462.

6
 Through most of Plato’s writings, war is cast in a negative light. In Statesman he criti-
cises leaders with “excessive enthusiasm for the military life” because they are “constantly
working their community up into a state of warlike intensity”.33 He clearly emphasizes the
great virtues which are to be found outside the battlefield, for example in philosophy.34 But
it’s important to note that Plato also commends the virtues of warfare,35 and he also states that
a political leader must be prepared for war.36 Plato is no pacifist, and he clearly sees the ne-
cessity of military matters, but he is also fully aware of the dangers of overemphasizing it.37
The strongest statement of the goodness of peace in Plato’s philosophy is found in
book I of The Laws. Here the Athenian stranger asks whether the lawgiver in a city should
“make all his legal provisions with an eye to what is best?”, to which the interlocutor answers
“of course”. The Athenian stranger then states the following: “But what is best is not conflict,
not civil war (things we pray that there will never be need for), but rather peace – yes, and
amity – with one another.”38 This sentence clearly shows that to Plato, peace is preferable to
war. This is a major step forward compared to the Athenian thesis in Thucydides’ History.
Whereas the Athenians’ claimed that there was no right or wrong in relations between states,
Plato firmly upholds that peace is better than war. An obvious position, maybe, but still an
important one in the development of the philosophy of peace.

How then, does Plato believe peace can be accomplished?

2.3 Peace through law

The wider parts of Plato’s political philosophy have a strong focus on the education and virtue
of the political leaders. As the Socrates-character says in his speech in The Republic; either
philosophers must become kings, or kings must become philosophers.39 Plato’s ideal city
should be governed by such wise philosophers, who rule to the common benefit of all.40 And
it’s through law these philosophers will rule. It’s the law which will “bind the city together.”41

33
Plato, Statesman, 308a.
34
Plato, The Republic, 450b, 472a, 473e, 486b, 535a.
35
Ibid., IV.430b. Symposium, 219-221.
36
Plato, Statesman, 307e.
37
Reichberg, Syse, Begby, Ethics of War, 18-19.
38
Plato, The Laws, I.628c.
39
Plato, The Republic, V.473d.
40
Ibid., VII.519e, 540a-e.
41
Ibid., 520a.

7
And as Plato clearly emphasizes in book I of The Laws, it’s peace that should be the lawgiv-
er’s primary concern: “Yet [the lawgiver’s] aim, in all his legislative activity for [the people],
would be anything but war.”42 This statement clearly expresses a wish to use the law to avoid
war. Plato repeats this sentiment later in the dialogue when he writes that “To be a true law-
giver, his provisions for time of war must be based on the demands of peace, rather than his
provisions for peace being based on the demands of war.”43 In other words, the aim of legisla-
tion in Plato’s ideal city is peace, not war.44
To Plato, law is a tool to be used for the establishment and preservation of peace. This
is an idea which Plato shares with the early modern philosophers. Law as an instrument of
peace is central in the philosophy of Hobbes, Locke and Kant. Hobbes writes that the sover-
eign’s exclusive right to make laws (what he calls Propriety) is “necessary to peace”.45 To
Locke, the rights of man are preserved by having “a standing Rule to live by, common to eve-
ry one of that society, and made by the Legislative Power erected in it”.46 Kant demands that
states “renounce their savage and lawless freedom [and] adapt themselves to public coercive
laws”.47 We can also see parallels between Plato’s philosophy and Hersch Lauterpacht’s fa-
mous statement, which reads: “International law should be functionally orientated towards
both the establishment of peace between nations and the protection of fundamental human
rights”.48 Plato and Lauterpacht have in common the wish for law to be used as an instrument
of peace.

3 Plato and internationalism/cosmopolitanism

As we have seen above, Plato clearly wishes to preserve the peace within his ideal city. But
what are his thoughts on the relation between other cities and nations? Can we find any trace
of internationalism or cosmopolitanism in Plato’s thinking? As Lidén and Syse write, interna-
tionalism is the belief that international law is derived from “a set of universal principles per-
taining to the morality of states”. The early exponents for this school of thought are John
Locke and Immanuel Kant. They believed that the citizens owed their allegiance not to their

42
Plato, The Laws, I.628a.
43
Ibid., I.628d.
44
Kristofer Lidén and Henrik Syse, «The Politics of Peace and Law», 24.
45
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 125.
46
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 284.
47
Immanuel Kant, Political Writings, 108.
48
Cecilia M. Bailliet and Kjetil Mujezinovic Larsen, “Introduction”, 1.

8
state alone, “but to the sovereignty of all states, as regulated by international law”. In contrast
to Hobbes, who believed war to be the natural state between nations, Locke and Kant believed
that peace was the default relationship between states.49 Cosmopolitanism is a continuation of
the liberal and international ideas found in Locke and Kant, but here the focus is purely on the
individuals’ rights. Kant’s Perpetual Peace, where he expresses a wish for a federation of free
republican states, bound together by “universal hospitality”, is one example of this kind of
thinking.50 In Kant’s view, individuals and states should be “coexisting in an external rela-
tionship of mutual influences”, and the people should be regarded as “citizens of a universal
state of mankind.”51
A significant difference between the classical and the early modern political thought is
the modern national state. To Plato – and the Socratic philosophers in general – the only
healthy societies were small city-states, the Greek polis. The Socratic philosophers’ thoughts
on international relations reflect the Greek policy of their time; foreign contact and influence
should be kept to a minimum, and the polis should rather seek distance and alienation from
the rest of the world.52 Still, Plato does write extensively about contact between the city-
states. How then, does his thoughts on foreign policy compare to that of Kant?

3.1 The relation between city-states

In The Laws, the Athenian stranger discusses the idea of contact between city-states. His im-
mediate outlook is negative. He is afraid that his “good” city can be hurt by contact with cities
– and people – which are not. The ideas and impulses these unruly people bring into the
“good” city can cause “untold harm”.53 Still, as Plato also points out, one cannot prohibit all
contact with other cities: “Afterall, a city in isolation, can never be properly civilised or com-
plete (…)”54 Total isolation is not to be desired, and some contact between other cities is in
fact to the benefit of the city. However, this contact should be highly restricted. Plato writes:
“no one below the age of forty shall ever be permitted to go abroad at all, anywhere; next, no

49
Ibid., 36-39, 31.
50
Ibid., 35.
51
Immanuel Kant, Political Writings, 99. Although cosmopolitanism first became a widespread phenomenon in
the 18th century, its roots can be found in the stoic philosophy of the ancient world. The stoic philosopher
Diogenes (404-323 CE) famously said “I am a citizen of the world [kosmopolites].” (Anthony Pagden, The
Enlightenment, 7).
52
Thomas L. Pangle and Peter J. Ahrensonsdorf, Justice Among Nations, 36-37.
53
Plato, The Laws, XII.949e-950a.
54
Ibid., 951a-b.

9
one shall be permitted to go as a private individual, but only on public business as heralds, or
on embassies, and certain kinds of fact-finding mission.”55 This isolative policy is a stark con-
trast to Kant’s belief in “universal hospitality” in a “universal state”.
However, one can ask the question: What if all cities where like Plato’s “good” city?
What if all cities were ruled by philosopher? As Angela Hobbs points out, that is in fact Soc-
rates’ aspiration in his speech in The Republic.56 He seeks the end of suffering of the “human
race”, of “our cities”,57 not just his own. What then, if Plato’s constitution was to become uni-
versal? With philosophers ruling every city, there would only be good laws, and therefore no
war. Then contact between cities wouldn’t need to be restricted, because there would be no
bad influence. If Plato had his way, wouldn’t that result in a kind of “perpetual peace”? It’s
worth noting that Kant’s own perpetual peace also depended on states adopting a certain kind
of constitution.58 As it says in his First Definitive Article of Perpetual Peace: “The Civil con-
stitution of Every State shall be Republican”.59 Plato and Kant both seem to think that “bad”
constitutions are the main barrier to peace. But unlike Kant, Plato never really considers the
possibility of all cities implementing his “good” constitution. But what if they did? Then
wouldn’t a cosmopolitan, perpetual peace like the one Kant envisaged be realized in Plato’s
ideal world? Angela Hobbs seems to think so. She writes that “it is at least conceivable that
there could be a civilization without (at least) offensive war, and perhaps even a cosmopolis
without war at all.”60 I agree.
However, such a cosmopolis is not afforded any real consideration in Plato’s philoso-
phy. To Plato, living in the world of the Greek polis, the realisation of a cosmopolitan peace is
unthinkable. War is the reality of his world. Therefore, his ideal city must have an army. Un-
like Kant, who believed that standing armies would gradually be abolished,61 Plato writes in
depth about the organization of the city’s soldiers, whom he calls “guardians”. This doesn’t
mean that Plato is a warmonger. Plato’s city-guardians are exactly that – guardians. They are
meant to protect, not attack, and their long-lasting education is supposed to teach them virtue

55
Ibid., 950e.
56
Angela Hobbs, “Plato on War”, 17.
57
Plato, The Republic, V.473d.
58
Kristofer Lidén and Henrik Syse, «The Politics of Peace and Law», 31.
59
Immanuel Kant, Political Writings, 99.
60
Angela Hobbs, “Plato on War”, 19.
61
Immanuel Kant, Political Writings, 94.

10
and moderation.62 The city must be ready to defend itself, but it should not instigate wars.63
This military policy is similar to the position of modern internationalists, who also believe
that self-defence is a necessity.64

3.2 Greeks and barbarians

It’s important to point out that Plato’s thoughts on foreign relations are limited to contact be-
tween Greek cities. Plato has, unlike Kant or Hersch Lauterpacht, no concern with “peace
between nations”. When Plato writes about peace, it’s peace between the Greeks he contem-
plates. It’s a repetition of the Peloponnesian War – which he calls a “civil war” between the
Greeks – he wants to avoid. Plato has more in common with Hobbes, as they both seek to
prevent war on a domestic level, not between states.65 Wars against foreigners, like the Greco-
Persian Wars in the early 5th century BC, are not necessary a bad thing to Plato. He hails the
famous Greek victories against the Persians at Marathon and Platea, and he claims the battles
“made the Greeks better”.66
Plato clearly separates between “Civil war”, which is “the name for conflict with what
is one’s own”, and “War” which is “the name for conflict with what is not one’s own.” Plato
then states that “to a Greek, the whole Greek race is “his own”, or related, whereas to the bar-
barian race [non-Greeks] it is alien, and not its own.” This sharp division between the Greeks
and “the others” has implications for Plato’s thoughts on the natural relation between states.
For while the Greeks are “natural friends”, Greeks and barbarians are “natural enemies”, and
should be treated “in the way that Greeks at the moment treat one another [with hostility].”67
In Plato’s thought on natural relations, we can see both similarities and differences
compared to that of early modern philosophers. His belief in natural hostility between Greeks
and barbarians has some parallels to the realistic position of Hobbes. The English philosopher
famously said that “The state of commonwealths, considered in themselves, is natural, that is

62
Plato, The Republic, 375d-412b.
63
Angela Hobbs, “Plato on War”, 16. Henrik Syse, “The Platonic Roots of the Just War Doctrine”, 108.
64
Angela Hobbs, “Plato on War”, 35.
65
Reichberg, Syse, Begby (eds.), The Ethics of War, 442. Like Plato, Hobbes had experienced civil war, which
explains his aversion for internal strife.
66
Plato, The Laws, IV.707c.
67
Plato, The Republic, V.470b-d, 471b. The dialogue is set under the Peloponnesian War, when the Greeks
fought each other with great brutality and violence.

11
to say, hostile.”68 Hobbes grounded this natural hostility on the aggressive human nature. Pla-
to, on the other hand, explains the hostility with cultural differences. Between the Greeks,
who share in a common culture, peace is natural. But between the Greeks and the alien “bar-
barians”, the natural state is one of animosity. Whereas Hobbes saw wars between hostile
states as inevitable, that’s not necessarily the case to Plato. Greeks and barbarians are natural
enemies, but he never says that this animosity will result in war. The relation between Greeks
and barbarians is simply an aspect of politics he doesn’t give any further contemplation.
However, Plato distances himself from the realistic position when he argues that
Greeks are natural friends. Plato’s view is similar to the international stance of Locke and
Kant, who both believed that peace was the default relation between states. But unlike Plato,
Locke and Kant didn’t separate relations based on culture or race. To them, the natural rela-
tion was that of peace between all states.69

4 An Individual Right to Peace?

There is no “Right of Nature”, as Hobbes formulated in Leviathan, to be found in Plato’s phi-
losophy. This is an important divide between the classical Greek philosophy and the early
modern. As Richard Tuck writes: “Ancient politics lacked the idea of rights, insisting instead
in the power of the citizen body, acting collectively, to determine aspects of people’s lives.”70
Plato’s thoughts are always on the collective, on what is best for the community, not the indi-
vidual. In The Republic, he demands that individuals forsake perks and privileges like person-
al freedom, private property and freedom of speech – what we today would call inalienable
human rights – to serve the common cause. People are to be confined to a role or a class based
on their abilities (“give him the position in society his nature deserves”71). The individual
himself has no choice in the matter. Those who are chosen to be guardians of the city shall
have “no private property beyond what is absolutely essential”, because land, house and mon-
ey will corrupt them, and turn them into “hostile masters”.72 Even storytelling, poetry, music
and dancing must be supervised, and to a certain extent prohibited, because such things also

68
Thomas Hobbes, On the Citizen, 137. Quoted in Thomas L. Pangle and Peter J. Ahrensonsdorf, Justice Among
Nations, 151.
69
Reichberg, Syse, Begby (eds.), The Ethics of War, 462-463, 522-523.
70
Richard Tuck, The Rights of War and Peace, 1.
71
Plato, The Republic, III.415c.
72
Ibid., 416d-417b.

12
contribute to the corruption of the city.73 By doing all this, Plato believes they have “purged
the city we said was to luxurious.”74 It’s by taking away certain individual rights that Plato
believes harmony and peace can be accomplished in the social and political community.
Plato’s willingness to abandon individual rights conflicts with the philosophy of John
Locke. To him, liberty and property were of even greater value than peace and security.75
Locke even encouraged the people to revolt against sovereigns who denied them their natural
rights.76 Such an idea would have been very alien to Plato. To him, the aim of the law is to
“engineer the benefit as the city as a whole, using persuasion and compulsion to bring the
citizens into harmony…”77 Plato seeks the protection of the city itself, not its citizens or their
rights. Early modern philosophers were themselves aware of the dichotomy between their
own concept of rights and liberty, and that of the ancient Greeks. As the 18th century French
political theorist Benjamin Constant wrote: “If this is what the ancients called liberty, they
admitted as compatible with this collective freedom the complete subjection of the individual
to the authority of the collectivity.”78
One can contrast Plato’s dismissal of individual rights to Hobbes’ Right of Nature,
which is “the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preser-
vation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life”.79 Although Hobbes reaches the con-
clusion that this right must be surrendered to the state, this is to serve an ultimate goal, which
is, as Lidén and Syse point out, “the peace and safety of the commonwealth and every person
in it…These rules are meant to protect the individual, not the state.”80 In Hobbes’ philosophy,
and the modern natural-rights liberalism in general, the individual right to peace comes before
the formation of the state, which validity is based on the individual’s right to live in peace.81
In Plato’s political philosophy, it’s man’s natural reason – not any natural right – which com-
pels him to live in peace. When the “luxurious” social and political community is established,
this reason is corrupted. Peace must therefore be forced upon the individuals by the state, for
the preservation of the state. Although the leaders of the state have a duty to protect the com-

73
Ibid., 377-399. The Laws, VII.799e-800a.
74
Plato, The Republic, III.399e.
75
Kristofer Lidén and Henrik Syse, «The Politics of Peace and Law», 29-30.
76
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 416-417.
77
Plato, The Republic, V. 519e-520a.
78
Benjamin Constant, Political Writings, 311.
79
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 91.
80
Kristofer Lidén and Henrik Syse, «The Politics of Peace and Law», 26.
81
Ibid., 27.

13
munity, and therefore its inhabitants, what is lacking from a modern perspective is the indi-
vidual’s corresponding right to be protected – its right to peace, so to speak.

5 Conclusion
Plato presents us with a philosophy of peace which is both idealistic and realistic. He
acknowledges political realities, while also preserving a positive outlook. His philosophy may
be ancient, but it’s also strikingly relevant.
Plato differentiates from the early modern philosophers in his view on the natural state
of man. This is not only a peaceful condition, it’s also the ideal condition. Even the liberalist
John Locke wouldn’t go that far. What Plato and Locke have in common, is their belief in
man’s natural reason and his predisposal for peace. However, Plato has little faith in the per-
severance of reason when faced with the temptations of the “luxurious” city. Whereas the
early modern philosophers saw the establishment of the social and political community as a
route to peace, Plato believes that war has its origin in such communities. When these com-
munities have been established, man is corrupted, and war becomes a possibility. The only
way to stop the outbreak of war in and between such communities is with good laws, and
good laws can only be made by wise rulers. Therefore, peace can only exist in a city ruled by
philosophers. Such a “good” city can be corrupted by outside influence, and contact must
therefore be restricted. Contact with non-Greeks is not something Plato even considers. This
kind of isolating and xenophobic foreign policy has, unfortunately, received newfound popu-
larity in recent years.
However, one can find some trace of internationalism and cosmopolitanism in Plato’s
philosophy. He implicitly says that contact between “good” cities is desirable, and one can
speculate, as I did above, that a peaceful cosmopolis consisting of only good cities might be
Plato’s deepest desire. If every city were governed like his ideal city, the world might be in
perfect harmony. However, it’s clear that he doesn’t consider this as a real possibility.
In line with the internationalists, Plato believes in a natural state of peace between the
Greeks. Although he claims that Greeks and barbarians are natural enemies – a stance more
reminiscent of that of the realists – he never says that this animosity will necessarily result in
war, and even if it does, Plato’s city will not be the one to instigate it. The city’s military is, as
we have seen, not organized for offensive warfare, but for self-defence, in line with the inter-
nationalists’ position.

14
 The clearest difference between the philosophy of Plato, and that of the early modern
school of thought, is the lack of individual rights. In Plato’s ideal city, the state and its laws
are not established to safeguard any pre-existing rights of individuals. On the contrary, the
“rights” of the individuals are defined by the state, through its (often invasive) laws. Still, I
would argue that this sentiment also has a modern ring to it. In our time, the rights of nature
have been replaced by the human rights. Although many of these rights have their origin in
the belief in inalienable natural rights, they are bestowed by the state, not by nature. It’s the
duty of the modern state to formulate these rights, to validate them and to uphold them. Pla-
to’s state is never tasked with preserving any individual rights, but it is, like the modern state,
responsible for the rule of law. The lawgiver in Plato’s city doesn’t bestow upon the citizens
any natural rights, but he is instructed to make laws “with an eye to what is best”. Reason
dictates that peace is best, and therefore all laws must be made for that purpose – even if it
means that “individual rights”, like freedom of movement, free speech and personal property,
are sacrificed. Today, few democratic governments would go as far as abandoning such fun-
damental human rights in the search of peace. However, the question of “freedom vs. securi-
ty” is more relevant in our time than ever before. We are, as Plato was, fully aware that per-
sonal freedom and national security can come into conflict, and that liberty sometimes must
be sacrificed for the sake of peace. In both our modern world and in Plato’s ideal city, it’s the
responsibility of the state to decide where such personal freedom ends and the needs of na-
tional security begin. Plato’s ideal city takes more extreme measures to uphold the peace than
most liberal states do today, but the concept remains the same: The state must use law to pre-
serve the peace.
I would therefore argue that in Plato we find the philosophical origin of law as an ac-
tive instrument of peace. It’s an idea which not only plays a central role in the early modern
philosophy of peace – as evident in Hobbes, Locke and Kant – but also in contemporary in-
ternational law.

15
Bibliography

Primary Sources

Constant, Benjamin. Political Writings. Edited by Biancamaria Fontana. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press, 1988.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Edited by Richard Tuck. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2016.

Kant, Immanuel. Political Writings. Translated by H.B Nisbet. Edited by Hans Reiss. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Edited by Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999.

Plato. Phaedo. Translated by David Gallop. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Plato. The Laws. Translated by Tom Griffith. Edited by Malcolm Schofield. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Plato. The Republic. Translated by Tom Griffith. Edited by G.R.F. Ferrari. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2000.

Plato. Statesman. Translated by Robin Waterfield. Edited by Julia Annas and Robin Water-
field. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Rousseau. Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Men. I The Dis
courses and other early political writings. Second Edition. Translated and edited by
Victor Gourevitch, 115-194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War. Translated by Martin Hammond. Oxford: Oxford Uni
versity Press, 2009.

Secondary Literature

Bailet, Cecilia M. and Larsen, Kjetil Mujezinovic. “Introduction. Promoting Peace through
International Law”, 1-18. In Promoting Peace through International Law, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2015.
16
Hobbs, Angela. “Plato on War”, in Maieusis: Essays in Ancient Philosophy in Honour of
Myles Burnyeat. Print publication 2007. Published to Oxford Scholarship Online, May
2008: 1-29. Printed 27.09.2018.
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199289974.001.000
1/acprof-9780199289974

Lidén, Kristofer and Syse, Henrik. «The Politics of Peace and Law», 19-42. In Promoting
Peace through International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Magee, Bryan. Filosofi. Tenkningens og ideenes fascinerende historie gjennom 2500 år – fra
oldtidens grekere til den moderne tid. Damm & Sønn A.S, 2002.

Pagden, Athony. The Enlightenment, And Why it Still Matters. USA: Random House, 2013.

Pangle, Thomas L. and Ahrensonsdorf, Peter J. Justice Among Nations. On the moral basis of
power and peace. Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1999.

Reichberg, Gregory M., Syse, Henrik and Begby, Endre (editors). The Ethics of War. Classic
and contemporary reading. Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

Stigen, Anfinn. Tenkningens Historie. Bind 1. Oldtiden, Middelalderen, Den Nyere Tid til
1600-tallet. Norge: Ad Notam Gyldendal, 1992.

Stigen, Anfinn. Tenkningens Historie. Bind 2. Den nyere tid. Fra 1600-tallet til vår egen tid.
Norge: Ad Notam Gyldendal, 1992.

Syse, Henrik. “Plato: The Necessity of War, the Quest for Peace”. In Journal of Military Eth-
ics, 5 November 2010: 36-44. Accessed 27.09.2018.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/150275702753457406?journalCode=s
mil20

Syse, Henrik. “The Platonic Roots of Just War Doctrine: A Reading of Plato’s Republic”. In
Diametros, nr. 23, March 2010: 104-123. Accessed 27.09.2018.
http://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/index.php/diametros/article/view/384

Tuck, Richard. The Rights of War and Peace. Political Thought and the International Order
from Grotius to Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

17
18