Origin and Nature of Justice: Plato, Aristotle, Hume, and Kant
This essay examines the origin and nature of justice through the philosophical perspectives of four major thinkers: Plato, Aristotle, Hume, and Kant. Plato views justice as harmony of the soul and the proper functioning of all parts of society. Aristotle defines justice in terms of lawfulness and fairness, distinguishing between moral and distributive dimensions. Hume treats justice as an artificial virtue grounded in human convention and the protection of property rights. Kant, by contrast, grounds justice in the moral autonomy of rational agents, independent of social utility or empirical observation. Together, these perspectives illuminate the depth and complexity of one of philosophy's most enduring concepts.
- Introduction: Justice as a central philosophical concept introduced
- Plato's Concept of Justice as Harmony: Justice as soul harmony and societal function
- Aristotle's Conception of Justice as Lawfulness and Fairness: Justice as lawfulness, fairness, and the mean
- Hume's Artificial Virtue: Justice as Convention: Justice as artificial virtue rooted in human convention
- Kant's Justice and Moral Autonomy: Justice grounded in rational autonomy, not social utility
- Conclusion: Comparative synthesis of all four philosophers' views
✍️ How to write this paper — guide & tools ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper moves chronologically through major philosophical traditions, giving the reader a clear historical arc from ancient Greek thought to Enlightenment philosophy.
- Each philosopher's position is introduced with a clear thesis statement before elaboration, making the comparative structure easy to follow.
- The conclusion concisely restates each thinker's core definition, reinforcing the paper's comparative purpose without introducing new material.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of comparative philosophical analysis. Rather than treating each thinker in isolation, it implicitly contrasts their positions—for instance, showing how Kant deliberately departs from Hume's utility-based justification of justice. This technique allows the essay to build cumulative understanding rather than presenting four disconnected summaries.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with a brief introduction establishing justice as a central philosophical concept and previewing the four thinkers to be discussed. Four body sections follow, each dedicated to one philosopher in roughly chronological order: Plato, Aristotle, Hume, and Kant. Hume receives the most extended treatment, including a critical assessment of weaknesses in his account. The conclusion synthesizes each position in a single comparative paragraph, mirroring the introduction's framing.
Introduction
Justice is one of the oldest prevailing conceptions in human thought and has been deliberated upon by numerous philosophers throughout history. It has been one of the most significant issues in the history of philosophy. Justice, as a Greek concept, was considered to be the virtue of the soul and of action. Essentially, the term just is used to define an individual who typically partakes in what is deemed morally right and is inclined to giving everyone what is due to him or her. The main objective of this essay is to discuss extensively the origin and nature of justice from the philosophical perspectives of key philosophers: Plato, Aristotle, Hume, and Kant.
Plato's Concept of Justice as Harmony
In his philosophy, Plato places a great deal of significance on the notion of justice. Plato argued that justice can be deemed a quality of the soul, in virtue of which human beings set aside unreasonable yearnings to satisfy every desire and to seek self-serving gratification from every object, instead committing themselves to a single function for the general benefit (Scott, 2015). From Plato's perspective, justice can be understood as harmony. Plato argues that a just state is attained when every individual undertakes his or her own role, and every part functions with an aim toward the good of the whole. In a just society, the rulers, the military, and the working people all perform what they are meant to do (Bhandari, 1998).
Furthermore, in a just society, the rulers possess wisdom, the soldiers display bravery, and those who produce material goods exercise self-control and are not overcome by their desire for gain. Plato specifies that a human being comprises three key elements: reason, spirit, and appetite. A person is considered just when every part of his or her soul performs its functions without interfering with those of the other elements. Reason, for instance, ought to rule in the best interests of the whole soul, guided by wisdom and prudence. When all three elements agree that reason alone ought to rule, justice is considered to exist within the individual (Bhandari, 1998).
References
Bhandari, D. R. (1998). Plato's concept of justice: An analysis. Ancient Philosophy.
Chroust, A. H., & Osborn, D. L. (1941). Aristotle's conception of justice. Notre Dame Law, 17, 129.
Harris, J. A. (2010). Hume on the moral obligation to justice. Hume Studies, 36(1), 25–50.
Harrison, J. (1980). Hume's theory of justice. Oxford Scholarship Online.
Reidy, D. A. (1993). Does Hume have a theory of justice? Auslegung, 19(1), 63–74.
Scott, D. (2015). Levels of argument: A comparative study of Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Smith, G. H. (2016). Immanuel Kant's theory of justice. Libertarianism.org. Retrieved from https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/immanuel-kants-theory-justice
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.