Final answer:
Pyrrhonism would argue against the necessity of justifying political beliefs due to its deep skepticism. Plato's Justified True Belief (JTB) account suggests the necessity of such justification.
Step-by-step explanation:
Given that Pyrrhonism presents a radical form of skepticism that questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge, we may consider how it affects the justification of political beliefs. Pyrrhonism itself would argue against the necessity of such justification, as it posits that one may never truly reach a state of certain knowledge. In contrast, Plato's theory of knowledge, often formulated as the Justified True Belief (JTB) account, maintains that for one to know something, it is not only necessary to believe it and for it to be true, but also to have justification for that belief. However, post-Gettier developments in epistemology have shown that JTB may not always be sufficient for knowledge, raising questions about the nature of justification.
While Socrates elevated the importance of examining and justifying beliefs, Protagoras, Gorgias, and other Sophists presented more relativist and skeptical positions on truth and knowledge. In the context of political beliefs, this scrutiny and the search for righteous justification are indeed paramount according to Plato, but the Pyrrhonian approach would cast doubt on this pursuit's efficacy. Hence, from a Pyrrhonian standpoint, the justification of political beliefs may not be necessary, as all beliefs could ultimately be questioned.