If we proceed along the old path, my belief, I said, is that we shall find the answer. And our answer will be that, even as they are, our guardians may very likely be the happiest of men; but that our aim in founding the State was not the disproportionate happiness of any one class,but the greatest happiness of the whole;we thought that in a State, which is ordered with a view to the good of the whole, we should be most likely to find justice, and in the ill-ordered State injustice: and, having found them, we might then decide which of the two is the happier. At present, I take it, we are fashioning the happy State, not piecemeal, or with a view of making a few happy citizens, but as a whole; and by-and-by we will proceed to view the opposite kind of State.
Suppose that we were painting a statue, and someone came up to us and said, why do you not put the most beautiful colours on the most beautiful parts of the body — the eyes ought to be purple, but you have made them black — to him we might fairly answer, Sir, you would not surely have us beautify the eyes to such a degree that they are no longer eyes’; consider rather whether by giving this and the other features their due proportion, we make the whole beautiful. And so I say to you, do not compel us to assign to the guardians a sort of happiness which will make them anything but guardians….
When the guardians of the laws and of the government are only seeming and not real guardians, then see how they turn the State upside down; and on the other hand, they alone have the power of giving order and happiness to the State.
We mean our guardians to be true saviours and not the destroyers of the State