When we are born, as babies who are barely cognitive of the world, we donʼt know a single thing. It is only through living—experiencing the world with our senses—that we can come to obtain knowledge (G.). Such is Platoʼs philosophy of knowing. Having lived through a period of dictatorship and witnessed the corruption of power, Plato became disillusioned with politics. The Republic was his attempt to create the perfect, ideal city-state, which he called Kallipolis. In Kallipolis, everyone must take on the role they are naturally best at. One such role is that of a soldier, which Plato elaborates upon in Book V, page 466–468. Through comparisons, Plato argues that to cultivate a culture of honor, courage, and loyalty within the military, it is necessary to involve children in military campaigns and to reward distinguished warriors. However, by restricting people to a particular role, he inadvertently created a rigid hierarchical structure in which soldiers are valued above working-class citizens.

In order to prepare for war, a state must train a good fighting force. According to Plato, there is no better way to do this than to begin training soldiers as early as possible. Thus, the children of Kallipolis who are slated to become warriors would be taken on military campaigns (Plato V. 466.e). Much like how “children of potters . . . assist and observe” their parentsʼ job, they will assist and observe the war effort (V. 467.a). This analogy creates a logical progression from apprenticeship with oneʼs parents to apprenticeship in the military, which strengthens the idea that children exposed to warfare at an early age are primed to be loyal to the military. The child-parent relationship is displaced such that the childʼs loyalty lies not with their family, but with the military. The comparison also underscores the fact that children in the military only get one type of experience—the experience of warfare—which limits their knowledge and leaves them with no other viable career options.

Having been trained to be loyal at an early age, the child-soldiers of Kallipolis grow up to become warriors with a strong sense of comradery. They are expected to “guard together and hunt together like dogs” (V. 466.d). Loyalty and courage—these are qualities that a dog should have. So logically, it should follow that warriors, who are compared to dogs, must also have these qualities. Using dogs as a comparison makes the case that warriors ought to be loyal and faithful guardians more accessible to the audience, as it simplifies the comparison with a familiar concept, which helps them better understand the message. The comparison is later expanded upon, as it is said that “every animal fights better in the presence of its young” (V. 467.b). Although factually false, this statement is effectively presented as an absolute truth, deceiving the audience into concluding that since humans are animals, they would want to protect their children too. This supports the previous argument that children should be present at military campaigns because not only do they gain experience and knowledge, but warriors are more willing to fight.

In the military code of conduct, in addition to sworn loyalty, courage is valued above all. Any acts of “cowardice,” including “throw[ing] away [oneʼs] shield,” is deemed dishonorable and punishable (V. 467.d). Conversely, a warrior who “distinguishes himself and earns high esteem” will be “honor[ed] . . . at sacrifices” and “crowned with wreaths by . . . children who accompany the expedition” (V. 486.b). The provision that children should be the ones crowning the warriors references and reinforces the previous argument that it is only natural for children to take part in the military. By juxtaposing deserters with heroes, the comparison presents a false dilemma: if cowardice is to be condemned, then bravery must be the only acceptable path. It reaffirms the idea that acts of heroism are courageous and superior, which contributes to the ultimate goal of cultivating honor and courage within the military.

The reward of recognition is not the only incentive for a warrior to pursue honor and courage, as distinguished warriors would be allowed to kiss whoever they want and “beget as many children as possible” (V. 468.c). Plato believes that humans have spirited desires, including the desire for courage and good reputation, as well as appetitive desires, which are physical cravings like lust and hunger (M.). The acknowledgement that warriors are motivated by a combination of social and physical rewards highlights the need for a comprehensive rewards system. It is therefore logical to conclude that the pursuit of courage and heroism in the military should be fostered through a system that celebrates those values. However, where thereʼs reward, thereʼs punishment. Warriors who violate the code of honor will be “reduced to being a craftsman or farmer” (V. 468.a). The word “reduced” connotes a decrease in value one contributes to society, revealing that the working class who support the functionality of the city are considered inferior to the courageous soldiers who defend them. Even an ideal society is not immune to the dehumanization of labor and social inequality.

Although the military functions as a collective, Plato sees soldiers as individuals deserving of honor and fame. Meanwhile, the labor force—people who are the backbones of society—is reduced to nothing more than their job titles. This opens the door to unfair compensation and treatment of workers, whose worthiness is determined only by the value they generate for society (or, better yet, the corporate overlords). A utopia, by definition, is a perfect world. It is a world without hunger, pain, or anything that inflicts human suffering. Yet, Plato considers war to be an inherent, even integral part of society. He is less concerned with building an ideal city, but rather an ideal political system with a rigid class structure where soldiers are given more opportunities and freedom than working-class citizens. This lack of social mobility is ultimately damaging to a society. No one deserves to be trapped in poverty or in low-paying jobs, confined to the roles imposed on them by the lottery of birth.