The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines justice as “Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions. Consistent with what is morally right; righteous.” However, what was fair 100 years ago is not always fair now. Read on for how various political philosophers have attempted to pin down the subjective concept of justice.
Martin Luther King on Justice
In Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s Letter From Birmingham Jail he dictates how injustice is determined: collection of the facts, negotiation, self-purification and direct action. He says an “unjust law is a code that numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.” By this definition, great injustice has existed throughout the course of human history. Each absolute monarchy posed injustice on a large scale. Injustice can exist in any political system; sovereignty, democracy, communism, each has a weak spot for unjust laws to be created by either the majority or the dictator.
Plato’s Justice Philosophy
Plato’s idea of a just and fair society includes public education, philosopher-kings as rulers, and an aristocratic government. He thought that men and women, though generally different, should be treated equally. Just laws in Plato’s world would follow these ideals accordingly. In his time, Plato ideas were seen as radical, though throughout history we have seen instances of his philosophy. Today our society’s children are educated by the state and it is illegal to treat men and women differently and the majority of people agree with this.
Thomas Hobbes
Thrasymachus, a Greek philosopher once said, “Justice is simply the advantage of the stronger.” No one could follow this philosophy more than Thomas Hobbes. In Hobbes’ political philosophy, all laws are fair and justified under the rule of an absolute sovereign. According to him, even if a law makes no sense to citizens, it is justified because all laws are to protect the greater good. He never sees rebellion as justified within a government. Above all, Hobbes gives the most justified action to those who do anything to protect themselves from death.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Hobbes’ philosophy of justice wouldn’t hold up in, say, Rousseauian world. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ideas of just laws are in some ways nearly the opposite of Hobbes; he believes that just laws are come by consensus and full participation of the people. In Rousseau’s society, many laws could be perceived as unjust because Rousseau believes that fair means agreed upon by everyone. Like Hobbes, Rousseau also believes in the common good of the people; in his society the sovereign is the majority.
Universal Justice?
A Chinese Proverb states “justice resides naturally in people's hearts.” An old playwright, Terence, circa 195 B.C. noted that that there is a difference between law and justice; “rigorous law is often rigorous injustice.” It becomes clear that perhaps over time a universal idea of justice has begun to develop. One that includes civil rights and equality for all. One where the guilty are justly punished, either here or in an afterlife.
Justice is a slippery concept that was made by man and reformed along the way. It’s a word with a definition that is widely interpretable, making it nearly impossible to fully set down in stone in a society. It’s also a word that many will continue to define and strive for in the face of its opposite, injustice.
 |
