What is Justice?
Is Justice a subjective or an objective thing? Can we consider Justice an object or is it merely a subject in the mind of the observer, and thereby subject to our individual bias?
Do we really, as a society have a common definition or working understanding of what justice is in terms of its implementation in our society? Recent events seem to suggest that there is no real objective understanding of what Justice really is. Maybe I'm just naive, and this is the way of the world. Maybe my understanding of our country, that it's a good and just society on the whole has been misplaced. Maybe Justice is something that only exists between equals in power, and the rest merely fight over scraps.
Are Justice and morality intertwined? If so, what is the basis of our morality? The founders of our great nation designed a government based on Judeo-Christian values, and I'm beginning to understand why those values are under assault. If my goal was to rip apart the moral fabric of American society I believe that is where I would attack first. If you can chip away at the Bedrock of a society enough you may just be able to topple it.
I've looked to philosophical discussions between Socrates and Thrasymachus, both reject traditional moral values on the grounds of what they see as reality. Although both see themselves as realists and reject the traditional basis for the good life, their individual views on the question of justice are in many ways on opposite ends.
According to Thrasymachus views:
"You think that shepherds and cowherds seek the good of their sheep and cattle, and fatten
them and take care of them, looking to something other than their master’s good and their
own…you believe that rulers in cities true rulers, that is-think about their subjects
differently than one does about sheep, and that…they think of something besides their
own advantage…justice is really the good of another, the advantage of the stronger and
the ruler, and harmful to the one who obeys and serves”According to Thrasymachus those who act just or believe in justice are the ones at loss, as they receive no benefit. Justice according to him is solely for the ruler, who rules the city, or in this case our country.
The paragraph below is borrowed:
"Socrates, on the other hand believes Thrasymachus’s view allows for the unjust to occur, because people would never want to be just or act justly. This would then create a city consisting of people who allow for injustice to occur which is against true wisdom according to Socrates. Socrates also has different views in regards to money and power. Unlike Thrasymachus, Socrates does not believe that the city and the ruler’s main goal and interest are money or power. Socrates does not promote injustice like Thrasymachus as he believes a city will not function without necessary wisdom, and virtue which can only be found when justice occurs. Justice is essentially virtue and wisdom according to Socrates. Thrasymachus on the other hand feels that injustice is profitable, and justice isn’t, he praises injustice greatly. According to him, this will allow for the ruler to be at an advantage which will allow for money and power to be attained for the “stronger”. In a city, justice is something only to advance the benefit of the stronger."Without getting too far into the weeds on this I believe it hits home the point that our 'rulers' today are only interested in money and power, and Justice according to Socrates has been tossed into a ditch alongside the railroad tracks. All three branches of our government are in cahoots and have adopted the philosophy of Thrasymachus where Justice is concerned.
More bottowed text:
Socrates firmly believes that “the life of a just person is more profitable”. He believes that a city of good men would fight not to rule as they realize it will require them to put forth work to benefit others. A ruler benefits his subjects, not himself as Thrasymachus believes. According to Socrates, justice is the greatest good, and something to be valued by anyone who is going to have happiness because of what comes from it. He asserts that the worst thing someone could do to his city is injustice, something Thrasymachus stands for. The goal of Socrates’ ideal city is to not make any one group outstandingly happy at the expense of others, which is what Thrasymachus wanted, the happiness and benefit of only the stronger. Rather, Socrates believes a city should make everyone as happy as nature allows and this is to him is justice.Maybe Socrates was wrong, maybe Injustice is more profitable than Justice.. Maybe I'm just a dreamer.
