The new study edition of the Republic that I put together with Stephan Mayo is now out and I'm using it this semester with a core group of very bright philosophy majors (The Elite!). The text was based upon a series of course notes that Steve and I put on-line over ten years ago, and it has been at least six years since I've explored the wisdom in this masterpiece of philosophical literature.
I've always felt that the Republic deserves to be called the greatest work in the field of philosophy, not only because of the influence it has had on the entire history of philosophy, but also because it treats virtually every important issue that any serious student of philosophy should care about.
Of course, the main question that Plato/Socrates addresses is, "What is Justice?" Now, this work was written almost 2,500 hundred years ago, but it seems that we are no closer to answering this question than the ancient Greeks were. Liberals would argue that justice is caring for the most vulnerable members of the society, libertarians that it is allowing for maximal personal freedom and the most minimal government possible, and religious conservatives maintain that justice is only possible in a society which respects biblical values and ideals.
Everyone has his or her own ideas about what justice is and often these ideas come into conflict with one another. As a communitarian and distributivist I certainly have my own ideas about what justice is. Of course, the kind of society that I would create if I were the Philosopher-King would probably alienate just about everyone, except the three other people in the country who share my rather peculiar world-view.
Some day soon I hope to articulate my own distributivist position on justice on this site, but right now what I'd really like is to find out what other people think justice is. And I'd like to see if there's any commonalities among these views.
So, if you have your own ideas about what justice is--no matter how wacky they might be--feel free to share them with the rest of us!
Justice is a human creation to establish what is a righteous act and what is not. It is the balance of morality. Justice is not subjective and is absolute, for if it is not absolute than justice loses its power and meaning all together. If justice is subjective than a righteous act is only righteous relative to the person carrying out the act.- Anthony
ReplyDeleteThis appears to be a definition as to what Justice should be and what many believe it is, but it fails to truly critique the concept of justice.
DeleteI think you either need to provide a definition of "righteous" or find a better term (morally right, perhaps?). "Righteous" carries with it a religious connotation, and I'm not sure that's what you want to convey here.
DeleteJustice is a notion created by man to make the universe appear to be ordered so that the wicked get what most people receive is their just desserts. When in fact this is a naive notion based on the want of a such ordered universe. Justice does not exist without man's subjective want for fairness or guidelines for actions.
ReplyDeleteMark
Justice is definitely a product constructed to explain the universe and human actions. It is a method to explaining the perceived morality found among the human construct. Completely agree with your interpretation of justice in that sense.
DeleteI completely agree with you in that justice does not exist without man's subjective want for fairness or guidelines for actions. However, your comment about the universe is not ordered I feel does not have to deal with justice.
DeleteSometimes subjectivism can be bad.
DeleteWe are going to see this exact argument in the Republic. But I can't say that I full agree with your pessimistic and reductionistic views of justice. Some times, in fact, principles of justice can be used to create incredible social change, as in the case of the Civil Rights Movement.
DeleteIn my opinion justice is a human construct, void of Truth or ultimate validity. Nonetheless, I argue that to be just is to be fair. For something to be fair it must maintain equal treatment of all parties involved. One must be fair according to reason while being unbiased by religion or law. One's reasoning must be logical in order to understand what is fair and thereby just.
ReplyDelete-Daniel Woods
I think it is imperative that religion be put aside when examining if an action classifies as just. Logic is critical, for ultimately people must put aside those differences and focus on finding what is best for an individual. I definitely agree with your thoughts about justice.
DeleteIf justice is a fiction, upon what basis do you argue that it is just to be fair. Isn't this simply creating your own fiction?
DeleteJustice incorporates many ideas, such as fairness, rationality, balance, punishment, and praise. Fairness is required to bring about justice, because it calls one to follow a path to get what he needs without causing harm to others. Justice is brought about through rational thought with the use of proper, truthful judgment when assessing any situation. To allow for the common understanding and knowledge of what is wrong and unjust, a balance is needed in givng up personal freedom to the community to in turn receive those rights back and ensure safety. By punishing those who do wrong and praising thoes who do good, the knowledge of justice and fairness can be shared with and encouraged in a society.
ReplyDelete-Stefanie
Totally agree
DeleteThose may be components of what justice is but I don't think that this is the kind of universal defintion that Socrates or Plato would be looking for. What is it that makes fairness, rationality, balance, punishment, and praise dimensions of what it means to be just?
DeleteJustice is the first virtue of social institutions. In order for a social institution to prevail, there needs to be some form of justice. As a result, justice is a mutual agreement between everyone concerned to maintain some degree of equality. It is essentially the framework for societal institutions, enabling everyone in said society to live as equally as possible by respecting the dignity and value of each other as being humans. Overall, by respecting and acknowledging each others human nature, societies utilize justice to maintain equality and form a functioning society.
ReplyDeleteEric
What do you mean by "social institions"? The boy scouts is a social institution as is the local brothel. Why don't you just call it the "first virtue of socities", since you clearly are referring to the political dimension of justice?
DeleteThe question is what is justice and I think it means doing what is right or just. Justice is looking at things from the viewpoint of others and taking their background into consideration.It means doing the right thing even if it is not allows easy. Justice or fairness is subjective depending on the lifestyle or place where someone is raised and the values they are taught, what i think is the just thing to do might not be the same for everyone.Justice is also treating everyone how you would like to be treated.
ReplyDelete- valerie
First you argue that justice is relative and subjective, but then immediately say it's "treating everyone how you would like to be treated." Which is it? Is justice relative or does it follow a principle like this one that is universal and sbsolute?
DeleteJustice means to do the right thing.
ReplyDeleteJustice means to advocate for those in need.
Justice is a term used in the legal system.
Justice emphasizes the importance of supporting others regardless of race, color, creed, and bubble gum flavor.
Justice emphasizes the importance of treating others with respect and equality.
-TQ
You are giving me many different examples of what justice is, but what I am looking for is a universal definition that can be applied to every situation so that we know what is just and what is unjust in every circumstance.
Delete"Justice is the constant and perpetual will of giving each man his right." (Digest of Justinian I the Great, Emperor of the Oriental/Western Asiatic provinces of the Roman Empire) The fundament to my views of justice consists of a firm adherence to an overarching and homogeneneous abstract entity. The disparate elements of conflicting perspectives of justice are subsumed into the fabric of the monolithic state. This artifical construct is imposed upon the denizens of the state for hindering the approach of ochlocracy, unrestrained dissensions, and upheavals. This conception of justice closely parallels the particular social order and political state. In the presence of a conglomeration of poleis a common fabric molds disparate elements into a loosely-defined framework. The political fissiparousness and territorial conflicts of a heterogeneous cluster of poleis (City-states) prevents the establishment of a homogeneous and overarching order. In the presence of a monolithic state (During the reconstitution of the former territorial extent of the Roman Empire: 527-565 CE), the abstract entity of justice permeates into the multifarious aspects of civil society. Essentially dissimilar elements and concepts undergo a subsumption or incorporation into the overarching and objective whole. The concept of justice originates in the upper stratum of society and extends to the nadir of society. In the monolithic state, the concept of justice is universal and all-encompassing in its applicability.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think that your definition is a tad elitist, it is probably closest to that of Plato. On a totally unrelated note, your ideas, as always, are interesting, I just wish that you would express them in ordinary parlance.
DeleteDown with fissiparousness!
Delete