Plato’s Republic Revisited: with regards to Human Longevity
Part 1: Brief discussion of bioethics behind our pursuit of human life span
Author’s note
In this article, I am attempting to recreating a socratic dialogue in which Socrates, Polemarchus, Cephalus and Thrasymachus discusses the ethic and justices behind extending human life span. We, living in 2021, are on the verge of many break through scientifically in the field of human longevity. Many would even argue, our generation will perhaps be one of the last prior to achieving human immortality. I think this is a great analogy to Plato and Socrates’ time, at the dawn of antiquity and democracy, a society facing great changes. Using dialogue, Plato in his famous narration “Republic”, explores the ethics and justices behind political structure and the ultimate city state, reflecting on where the future lies and why. I think in our era, we needed something much the same, to ponder the whys behind human longevity, and to establish where our future lies. In this first part, the discussion will focus on the foundation and the justice aspect of this life span extension, while the second part will touch on longevity’s implication to community and meaning of life.
It was late in the night, torches and candles blazed on the periphery of the athenian agora. Four man, in there usual fashion, lies on the benches of Socrates house; candles flaring over the wine and bread left from dinner earlier that night. This is when Socrates, the eldest of the four, begin to speak. “I heard, the great alchemist (Scientist) of this great city are soon to be able to provide the citizen of Athene with means to live longer. I do not know how I feel about this.” There is clear sense of unease and fascination among the three of his company, a tense moment before the silence is broken.
Foundation
Is the pursuit of human longevity natural? What distinguish natural and unnatural in pursuit of longevity? Why can this be a limiting factor?
Cephalus: “I don’t think living longer is justified. We are naturally limited to a certain age, after which we die. Our wants and desire shouldn’t exceed this natural limit.”
Polemarchus: “That is true. There are fundamental differences between the appeal of being alive within limit of natural life expectancy, and the desire to be alive beyond.”
A brief moment of silence ensued
Socrates:“What are such fundamental differences? What makes them fundamental?”
Cephalus replied, without hesitation:“The first deals with the possession and continuation of things one naturally has to right to, while the second are dealing with scenario where one extend beyond this natural limit of right.”
Thrasymachus supplemented: “In other words using the concept of right to life is ill-suited for the second scenario, as it is not inherently held by the individual”
Unmoved, Socrates once again questioned: “then what distinguishes the scenario where right is the suitable or ill-suited?”
A moment of silence once again ensued.
Cephalus:“I think it should be considered natural when most are capable of obtaining it, otherwise it’s unjustified.”
This rash definition again ends in silence, as the three younger man turned toward Socrates, knowing the elderly man is preparing his further questions.
Justice and equality
Should we provide for some the technology and the treatment that others cannot afford? Is equality a valid justification against the progress of some?
Socrates: “A wise man speaks with reference to truth and reality”
Thrasymachus: “It is known in mountainous lands, where crops rarely grows(least developed countries), one can expect to live no more than 65 years while in land adjacent to the sea, where crops yields high and trade flourishes (developed counties), one can hope for 80 years of life. It must be mentioned, the only difference between the lands are the habit of life and virtue of surgeons (standard of life and healthcare system). Thus one must realise, the difference in outcome shows one to be unnatural and unjustified.”
Cephalus followed: “It should also be realised, the wealthy merchant in the land by the sea (the rich in developed countries) provides most for the alchemist(scientific research), it must be them that get such means as to life extension first. If one allows this means of life extension to be produced, we can only expect the ones who are living longer already, to live even longer.”
With a visible sigh, Socrates asked: “thus can you say that to deny one the means to live longer on the ground that others cannot afford such means is justified?”
Polemarchus, anxiously: “Further, can you say it’s just to pursuit a equality that means less abundance for all?”
A silence pursued.
Thrasymachus: “I think it’s worth noting that, by hindering the development of such means as to life extension, you are preventing a certain state of wrong and unjust from becoming even more wrong and unjust. Our life is not compared to a absolute standard, but compared relatively to each other. And so the overall outcome, which is more equal, is thus more just and better for all.”
Cephalus: “More to that, we must make a distinction between the ones capable of affording, the ‘haves’, maintaining they're ‘have’, and the right of them to become ‘Have mores’.”
Thrasymachus, impatiently: “There is fundamental difference between the haves and the potential haves they should not be mixed”.
Socrates, for the first time that night stating his idea: “the assumption of making an unjust and wrong even further unjust and wrong is based on a static interpretation of the world. The assumption is, the medical procedure developed is exclusively benefiting the ‘haves’ in all time frames, thus in the distribution of the new technology, a zero sum game.”
With a gentle pause, he then proceeds.
“There is no set quantity treatment we can provide, from a beginning that might be exclusive we can make it for all as more is made. This assumption of exclusivity can only stand in the short term, but is nowhere concrete in anything longer.”
A long pause thus ensued.
Soon to be continued in part 2
