Justice: Theories Philosophers and Thinkers Have Proposed

Justice: Theories

Philosophers and thinkers have proposed many theories of justice and while some of them appear to be based on sound premise, there are others that completely denounced logic. In his book, The Republic, Plato has introduced us to various viewpoints on justice concluding with Socrates' philosophy of the same. The one prevalent view of justice in Plato's days was introduced by Cephalus. He believed that justice meant always telling the truth and repaying what is given. Repaying what is given is a highly ambiguous view and one that needs to be analyzed closely. If one always repaid what he/she was given would that mean he is being just. For example, if a friend does me a favor and I repay it, then that is certainly a just act. Similarly if a friend hurts me or stabs me in the back, repaying the same would also constitute justice. So far it sounds logical but justice is a virtue. It should therefore be positive in nature. Hurting someone back doesn't really make sense because it violates the principles of friendship. Wouldn't it be better if I chose to forgive my friend and thus won him back? Thus while the philosophy is based on logic, it betrays the very essence of justice.

Thrasymachus proposed another theory of justice. According to him, justice was the law of the stronger. It meant that laws must always be formulated to protect the stronger. This philosophy is not even based on logic and the very premise of the concept is flawed. It must be made clear here that it is the weak who needs protection of the law, stronger or influential people can protect themselves through other means as well. "Thus, for Thrasymachus justice means personal interest of the ruling group in any state or we can further define it as "another's good." Laws are made by the ruling party in its own interest. Those who violate such laws are punished because violation of such laws is treated as violation of justice." (1) This view was severely criticized by Socrates who maintained that "just as a physician studies and exercises his power not in his interest but in the interest of a patient, the Government of any kind shall do what is good for the people for whom it exercises its art." (1) I agree and also disagree with Socrates here. Stronger may always try to manipulate the justice system but the structure of society and the system of checks and balances doesn't allow for this. Justice by its very definition means fairness and laws cannot be fair if they only benefit the strong. For example, minimum wage laws in the country are not created to benefit the stronger people, they are meant to protect the poor from exploitation.

Eye for an eye: the oldest and the most commonly cited view of justice is an eye for an eye. The concept is based on sound premise i.e. do unto others as they do unto you. If you have been mistreated, repay the favor. But as we mentioned above, such views of justice betray the very essence of the concept of justice. Justice is a virtue and it must be practiced as such. Someone rightly said that an eye for an eye would result in a blind world. Justice should also include forgiveness. While hurting someone back might sound like a plausible solution, it doesn't always lead to a better world. Exercise of justice should always revolve around the idea of creating a better and more livable world. However this solution would hardly help us achieve that ideal world.

Socrates believed that justice means a virtue that should aim to bring something good. I subscribe to this view because it captures the real essence of fairness. When people come together and form a society, they need laws to help them live together in peace and harmony. These laws must ensure that the result of their implementation would benefit everyone and would not result in more resentment or frustration. In short, these laws need to be based on justice. Justice is the only way we can create a world where everyone can live in peace despite their differences. However a justice system based on repaying or eye for an eye principle would only great more conflict.