The Concept of Justice

[Originally written on 20 March 2007]

Justice is a concept that, at least in contemporary political terms, is often referenced as the primary objective of democratic societies. Yet despite its prominence in this and other cultures, there is no universal definition for justice. In all of the eloquent words of the founding documents of this and other nations, no concrete definition can be ascertained. The challenge of defining justice is not unique to contemporary American politics, nor is it unique to American politics in general. It is a challenge which has transcended borders and cultures, persisting through the ages, compelling deep philosophical contemplation. Justice, then, is unique because it remains our aspiration not only to achieve it but also to definite it. The writings of Plato and Aristotle provide a compelling basis for defining justice, for it was their conviction as well as our own that justice is the basis for a great society.

The central purpose of Plato’s Republic is to define justice and determine whether it is beneficial for humans to be just. As Book I opens, a debate among a group of interlocutors about the definition of justice emerges. Cephalus is the first to offer a definition: justice means living up to one’s legal obligations and being honest. Socrates objects to this definition, countering that it is not just to return a weapon to a madman although this is technically a legal obligation. Justice then, cannot be solely defined on the basis of legal obligations. Polemarchus asserts that justice is defined as aiding one’s friends and harming one’s enemies. Socrates counters that it is never just to do harm, and that the fallibility of human judgment with regard to classifying friends and enemies renders this definition incorrect. Thrasymachus, espousing the Sophistic view of justice, declares that justice is simply the advantage of the stronger. In offering this definition, Thrashmachus’ aim is to validate the nihilistic tenets of Sophism and render justice obsolete, essentially stating that it is neither natural nor beneficial to be just. Socrates considers this view of justice to be the most disconcerting of all, as it essentially asserts that to be unjust is a virtuous action. Thrashmachus’ definition is dangerously nihilistic because it assumes the worst about human nature. According to this view, humans are naturally selfish, and society’s aim should be to enable the manifestation of this selfishness, not restrict it. None will prosper for long in a society which renders injustice virtuous, for this will facilitate rampant greed and lawlessness. All actions will be compelled by perceived self-interest without regard to the greater good.

Glaucon and the other interlocutors challenge Socrates not only to define justice, but to demonstrate that it is desirable for its own sake; essentially, that is pays to be just. To achieve this, Socrates endeavors to construct a model city which will embody both political and individual justice. Socrates is meticulous in his dictations of how a just city must be constructed, even going so far as to mandate what sort of stories will be permitted to be told in the city. The goal of Socrates’ city is to ensure the happiness of the city as a whole, not of any individual or specific group. It can be inferred, then, that Plato’s conception of justice is not centered upon the individual but rather the entire community. Justice is, according to Socrates, not a series of actions or outcomes but rather the structure of soul. In Book IV, Socrates declares that justice is interlinked with the health of the soul: a just soul is a healthy soul, and thus it can be deduced from this proclamation that it pays to be just.

Essential to the effectiveness of Plato’s model is ensuring that the proper individuals are ruling. The rulers must be, according to Socrates, philosophers. They must have full understanding of all of the Forms, especially the Form of Good. According to Socrates, only philosophers have knowledge, and thus only philosophers are capable of ruling the city justly. The Myth of the Metals will be told to the citizens to ensure public legitimacy of the ruling class. This prescription must compel contemplation. While it is Socrates’ aim to create a just city, it can be asserted that the perpetuation of myth in order to ensure the continued existence and efficiency of the city is itself unjust. Fundamentally, a city built upon deception and myth cannot be just.

Socrates’ model is flawed because it is based upon the assumption that the mechanism used to choose rulers is immune to corruption and therefore infallible. Is it not possible that a virtuous individual could be excluded from the ruling class because of a flaw in the system, or a man without virtue could be included? Socrates earlier stated that our judgment with regard to friends and enemies is inherently flawed. By this same logic, our judgment with regard to who is proper to rule must also be flawed. Plato’s model is inherently flawed because there is a clear potential for corruption. There is no objective standard which can be reasonably expected to produce a pure ruling class interested only in justice and concerned only with the interests of the city. After all, deception is clearly embraced by Plato as a means of maintaining order. Why, then, is it inconceivable that it cannot be used as a means of preserving power? Plato offers no institutional mechanisms addressing this, and thus his model is fundamentally flawed. In fact, his assumption that his just city will inevitably degrade to the worst possible form of regime over time renders his model ineffective over the long term.

The evolution from Plato to Aristotle is compelling. In Aristotle’s Politics he argues that justice can be defined as equality for equals and inequality for those who are unequal. Justice, Aristotle argues, is a concept which is regime-specific. In his classification of regimes, Aristotle states that the best regimes (kingships) are those which are the most just. The city, according to Aristotle, exists “not only for the sake of living but rather primarily for the sake of living well." Virtue, then, must be the foundation of the just city. In the best regimes, Aristotle argues, the community partners to ensure collective prosperity, and this is just. Aristotle concerns himself less with defining justice than in finding the best possible regime in which a community can live together amicably. The clear evolution from Plato to Aristotle is the emphasis on practicality. While Plato’s model can be criticized for being impractical because of its authoritarian nature and its ignorance of human nature, it can be asserted that Aristotle’s model essentially amounts to the best possible state of mediocrity. According to Aristotle’s model, stagnation and exclusivity comprise the best state of existence for justice.

The understanding of justice in contemporary western political culture differs greatly from the conceptions of Plato and Aristotle primarily because of their ignorance of the concept of the individual. American political culture is rooted in fierce individualism. In the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, justice is named one of the primary goals of our society, encompassing, along with equality, the “freedom” which serves as the basis of our society. In this context, justice is a means of assuring our freedom, not an end in itself. The aim of Aristotle and Plato’s models were to create a just city for its own sake. The purpose of justice today in western culture is to ensure the freedom and rights of the individual. We are concerned less with defining justice than in preserving freedom, and this is just. Fallibility of human judgment makes full justice impossible, but vigilance in searching for its meaning and working toward its attainment will assure the betterment of our society, and embracing justice for its own sake will deepen the meaning of human freedom.