When I think about the term "Justice" what comes to mind is not that of a concise definition or action, but a big jumbled up mess of contradictory ideals and desires that are tossed around every which way like a game of telephone. There never seems to be, never has been, and probably never will be, one idea of justice. Why this is, is due to the human nature, and its appetite. I wonder, where in "our" society's "idea of justice" does the idea end and the appetite begin? What I know at the present is that, what exists in our society is an "idea" of justice, and that we claim in our actions we act in the name of this "idea of justice." However, what I do not know is what this "idea of justice" is supposed to look like in a literal/physical demonstration. Also, what is the difference between what we believe to be an "idea of justice" and the true universal justice, which we have not yet come to comprehend.
To answer my own question, or at least give my opinion, I believe that any and all ideas of justice that i have come to know, aren't what the "universal justice" is meant to be, or at least I couldn't see them as being so. Plato says that true justice comes from acting in the good, for the good of society. What I see him saying is that we are all suppose to act for the good of others in the most selfless way possible, and in return they will act for the good of you in the same selfless manner. In theory such methods for maintaining a peaceful society seems viable, except for the fact that human nature would bring such a society to ruin in the end. However, even if such a society were to maintain itself, I still wouldn't see their society as a just one. This goes over into the teachings of Aristotle who had disagreements with Socrates and therefore, disagrees with Plato. Aristotle brings up the idea of different forms of particular justice that would label Plato's system as unjust, namely the distributive justice. With Aristotle's justice, there must be a equal trade within transactions,, and in Plato's system, it isn't necessarily guaranteed that every transaction, though preformed for the good, is equal, ergo it could be implied that Plato's society is unjust. However, this does not mean that Aristotle is necessarily right either, in fact there are many who would disagree with him as he and many others disagreed with Socrates, and from there not much is achieved.
What I want to come to understand is not the idea of justice, but what the universal justice is. Now I know such a goal is overly ambitious, and perhaps humans may never come to know or never obtain the capability to comprehend the universal justice, but I say its better than deluding ourselves with ideas of justice that originate from our desires. And what if we can never reach the universal justice, what do you believe is the best, or the most correct course of action in a reality that could well possibly be mostly void of justice? However if it were possible to find this universal justice, how do you think society would react to such a discovery? Would society welcome it or reject it, and why?
When we discuss a universal justice, I first think of the "form" of justice Plato believes in, an ideal that would persist wherever you are in the universe. However, when it comes to establishing this "idea of justice," my interpretation of both Plato's and Aristotle's explanations was that they were doing their best to define justice as it fits in society.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify with an example-let's say that an average, ordinary person who has not studied justice is stolen from, and levies against the thief an accusation that such an action was unjust. Where did he get this idea, without having studied justice and knowing exactly what it is? I think such a concept would have come from society itself, filtered in through everyday use of the term. We might call this a "man-on-the-street" idea of justice.
Taking this into account, I think Plato and Aristotle were trying to find a good definition that encompassed this everyday usage but also clarified all the nuances of justice, so that if anyone were to study their work that person would be able to gain a clearer understanding of what exactly justice is. Though they end up with two different definitions, I think the gist of both is rather similar and would fit everyday terminology-I think both would call stealing an unjust action. I think either definition could work for defining "universal justice," if all the world's societies were to accept one of them.
Aaron Vancil