Shakespeare’s Macbeth and Plato’s Republic

Book II of Plato's Republic asks this question: If I could commit injustice and get away with it, would it make me happier to do so?

Books II-IX answer: No, it would not.

Then Book X answers: You can't commit injustice and get away with it; you can hide some bad deeds from human beings, but you cannot hide all bad deeds, nor a bad character; and you can never hide anything from the gods, who will punish injustice and reward justice some in this life and a lot after this life!

Turns out that Shakespeare's Macbeth asks the same question and gives the same two answers. Macbeth and his Lady--spoiler alert!--try to hide their injustice. They use a combination of force and persuasion, as outlined by characters in the Republic's Book II. It makes them thoroughly miserable, and they observe that it would be better to be dead victims of injustice than living perpetrators of it:

Nought's had, all's spent, Where our desire is got without content: 'Tis safer to be that which we destroy Than by destruction dwell in doubtful joy.

. . . better be with the dead, Whom we, to gain our peace, have sent to peace, Than on the torture of the mind to lie In restless ecstasy. . . .

They also can't hide their injustice for long: Eventually, everyone recognizes their bad character and knows of at least some of their "secret murders." And, while it's possible to doubt it, eternal punishment looms. Macbeth has given "mine eternal jewel . . . to the common enemy of man."

Same question and same answers as Republic except for the G-d part instead of gods--and no talk of reincarnation.

I write about this in my most recent publication in the journal Metaphilosophy: "A Tale Signifying Much: How Shakespeare's Macbeth Teaches the Lessons of Plato's Republic, and Why Poetry and Philosophy Are Natural Allies"