Plato’s “City of Pigs”

What Do We Really Need to Live Well?

• Artemis Orphanou
• Eva Ierides
• Dinos Toumazos

More than two thousand years ago, Plato asked a question that remains surprisingly familiar today: What does a society really need in order to live well?

In Book II of The Republic, Socrates and his companions are discussing justice. Socrates suggests that it may be easier to understand justice in a whole society before trying to understand it in one individual. A society is larger, and its qualities may therefore be easier to see.

So they begin to build an imaginary city.

Socrates starts with a very simple idea: no human being is completely self-sufficient. We all need other people.

One person grows food. Another builds houses. Another makes clothes. Another makes shoes. People come together because they have different needs and different abilities. By helping one another and exchanging what they produce, they create a society.

This leads to another important idea: people should concentrate on the work they can do best. Socrates argues that more things, and better things, are produced if each person develops their particular ability rather than trying to do everything alone. As the city grows, more occupations appear. There are farmers, builders, craftspeople, traders, sailors and shopkeepers. A market develops, and money is introduced to make exchange easier.

The society Socrates first describes is simple.

People have food, shelter and clothing. They work, eat simple meals, drink wine, sing together and raise their children. They do not try to produce endlessly. They live within limits and, Socrates suggests, they can live healthy lives in peace and pass the same way of life to the next generation.

But Glaucon is not satisfied.

He objects that this life is too basic. He asks for the comforts that people normally expect: tables, better food, meat, sweets and other pleasures.

It is here that the famous expression “city of pigs” appears.

Socrates accepts the challenge. But the city now begins to change.

Once people want more than what is necessary, the society needs more goods, more services and more resources. It needs artists, musicians, poets, servants, cooks, teachers and many other occupations. It wants beautiful objects, gold, silver and luxuries.

Socrates calls this second society a “fevered” city, in contrast with the first, “healthy” city.

The change has consequences.

The land that was enough for the simple society is no longer enough for the luxurious one. More resources are required. The city begins to need land belonging to its neighbours.

And its neighbours may want exactly the same thing.

The result, Socrates says, is war.

This short discussion raises questions that reach far beyond food, furniture or luxury.

Plato is asking us to think about the difference between what we need and what we want.

Human needs bring people together. We depend on one another, divide our work and cooperate. But our desires can continue to grow. Once basic needs are satisfied, we may want greater comfort, greater wealth, greater choice and more possessions.

Where does that process end?

The dialogue does not require us simply to reject comfort, beauty, art or pleasure. Nor does it necessarily tell us that everyone should live with only the bare essentials.

The deeper issue is one of limits.

How much is enough?

Does prosperity always make a society better?

Can our wants grow faster than the resources available to satisfy them?

Can a society remain peaceful if its idea of a good life requires constant expansion?

And what happens if everyone wants more at the same time?

There is also another important question behind the discussion.

What do we mean by a “good society”?

Is it a society that gives people as much as possible?

Is it one that satisfies basic needs fairly?

Is it one that allows individual desires to grow freely?

Or must a good society also understand that some limits may be necessary for peace, balance and sustainability?

Plato’s imaginary city may seem very distant from modern life. Yet the questions are not distant at all.

We still depend upon other people. We still organise society through specialised work and exchange. We still distinguish, although not always clearly, between needs and wants. And we still live in a world where resources, land and the natural environment are not unlimited.

Perhaps this is why the strange little “city of pigs” remains worth discussing.

It asks us not simply what we can have, but what we actually need.

Not simply how much a society can produce, but what all that production is for.

And, finally:

Can we build a good society without first deciding what we mean by a good life?

• Artemis Orphanou, Director, Agora Dialogue
• Eva Ierides, Contributor, Agora Dialogue
• Dinos Toumazos, Chief Executive Officer, Agora Dialogue