Category: Justice

In his book Treatise of Human nature, Hume suggested that justice can be regarded as an artificial virtue. Hume argued that there cannot be social justice as members of the society cannot simply cooperate. Individuals in a society are driven by selfish desires of material possessions and checked generosity than love for each other. He points out that individual in their human capacities are not good in sharing properties. As pointed out by Hume, it is due to scarcity of resources that brings about their limited supply and hence the necessity of recognizing restricted private property rights in any given society. Despite the fact that human beings requires to live together, they find it hard to accept to share resources in a societal manner. The need for private property rights and the scarcity of resources and need to fulfill his wants are some of the circumstances that make justice a virtue aspect in any given society (Barry pp. 203-204).

Hume argues that a society is just an institution established to facilitate individuals to virtually live together but as a separate entity. In his argument, Hume suggested that human being forms communities in which every individual is allowed to belong. Of all circumstances, there must be clear distinction between what property is owned by whom and necessity for possession stability. Once these circumstances are observed there is very little or nothing that remains for communal possession. In the community resources are not evenly distributed among the members. Resource allocation depends on individuals capability and state in the society (Brian p. 87).

Circumstances of justice in a global context may be well explained through Global citizenship. This is a concept used to explain citizenship across the globe. Global citizenship is the moral and principled behaviors that explain the characters and values of human beings in a local or global context in a bid to understand them better. It guides individuals and groups of their responsibilities and roles in a community. Justice should be on the basis of real relationships among members forming a community or a society. Society should develop principles to enhance a growing relationship among its members. Justice should demonstrate the need for international and transnational relationships within the global community to bring about international justice. Global citizenship focuses on identifying globalizing economic resources (Buchanan p. 56).

Due to scarcity of resources, individuals have grouped themselves on the basis of availability and accessibility to the resources. On this context global justice remains a dream. The haves tend to cling to their wealth and due to the relative scarcity of these resources, the have-nots forms a society of their own. On global context the developed countries constitutes the developed societies. They own the highest proportion of the resources. These resources are not collectively owned but possessed individually. This class of global citizenship concerns with globalization of economic wellbeing. They are guided by the notion that the world is gradually turning into a global institution. In the global environment, the more economically powerful economies should have a social and a moral responsibility towards promoting the welfare of the less disadvantaged economies. This in effect is not the case. In a bid to promote global justice throughout the world, the developed nations have come up with a world order. This is an agreement that these nations should assist the less developed nations to meet their daily requirements and enjoy high standards of living enjoyed by the developed states. Global justice is both possible and necessary. Developed nations are the key players in the field of resource allocation. They own large businesses organizations and multinational companies. These key players in the economical field have programs aimed at giving back to the society. Although they claim to do so, their scope is far much below the required standards to maintain relatively high living standards. This demonstrates their selfish attitude towards realization of international justice although they have the potential and capabilities (Dower p. 153).

To achieve justice whether at national, international or global level, the wealthy persons and states as a matter of urgency require transferring a considerable amount of their wealth to the poor. This calls for establishment of global institutions with capability of transforming, reforming or even replacing the selfish actions of large multinational corporations and the beliefs of powerful states in resource allocation globally (Sen P. 16).

As Dower pointed out, global citizenship is founded on understanding that an individual has a moral, social and economical duty towards each other and especially in a global manner. All human beings require moral respect and support exceptionally. This is based on realization that no single individual is more important than the other. No human being can exist alone. Humans must exist as a community. Different states or societies are endowed differently in terms of resources. It is a social responsibility of a state or a society to interact and assist one another. Global citizenship can be seen as an ethical issue intended to enlarge human interaction and power. In essence the aspect of globalization also focuses on environmental needs and care. By conserving and protecting the environment, an individual takes care of the wellbeing of the other (Caney p.61).

There is need for all nations to cooperate economically, socially and politically to urgently control pollution for industrial survival. This will ensure that the world becomes a better place to live for everyone despite economical and social differences. All human beings are members to a global community. Humans are social beings. From time immemorial, human beings have always existed together. With recent developments in all sectors such as education, business, Transport, communications and sports there has been increased interaction of people from all corners of the world. The world has been made a global village. The level of interaction among communities has increased to a very high level such that individuals have seized to consider themselves in their tribal or states identification but on global aspects. They consider themselves global citizens. This trend empowers Dowers aspiration claim. The world is gradually becoming one society in which individual basic values are getting realized (Hassoun p. 21).

The idea of circumstances of justice is a practical phenomenon in attributing global citizenship. Disparities in standards of living, distribution of resources and wealth are possible threats to global justice and citizenship. Global citizenship is closely linked to human rights and dignity. This entails equitable allocation of resources available to a given society whether economical or market deliberations, and every member of that society can access good medical care. Societies should take responsibility of persons in need. Global citizenship can be acquired if all stakeholders actively participate in an effort to eradicate or reduce both social and international inequalities and to resist from all aspects that lowers the individual welfare. Inequality may be national or international. International inequality is well depicted while comparing the economies of developed and less developed states (Hobbes & Thomas p. 69).

The causes are attributed to factors such as colonialism, economical exploitation and imperialism. Internal inequality is the inequality between members of the same state. This can be as a result of poverty and poor education systems. There is need for global education on citizenship which incorporates human right awareness, peace education and international relations. Internationally, different republics should act as a global world by taking their responsibility by acting so. They should uphold the rights of global citizenship such as freedom of movement rights. States should uphold the concept of idealism by exercising high level of goodwill while formulating their foreign policy. Global citizenship can be fostered by the citizens themselves. The citizens have greatly agitated for universal rights and the need to migrating all over the world. Global citizenship although practicable will require good amount of time to be fully implemented. Individuals and corporations that hold majority of the global resources, due to self interest will always refuse to share or let go of these resources. It will take a lot of efforts through pressure groups to pressurize these institutions to take a collective action towards raising the social well being of the less fortunate individuals or state. It is therefore evident that as Hume argued out, the circumstances of justice if well and willfully executed can lead to global citizenship (Beitz p. 48-50).

Works cited

Barry, Education and standards of living. In R. Curren (ed.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Education. Oxford: Blackwell 2006.

Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations. Revised edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.

Brian, Culture and Equality. Cambridge: Polity, 2001.

Buchanan, Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-determination: Moral Foundations for International Law. Oxford University Press: Oxford 2004.

Caney, Justice Beyond Borders. Oxford: OUP, 2005.

Dower, An Introduction to Global Citizenship. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 2003.

Hassoun. World Poverty and Individual Freedom. American Philosophical Quarterly 2008.

Hobbes & Thomas, Leviathan. 1651 Edwin Curley (Ed.). Hackett Publishing 1994.

Sen, Inequality Reexamined. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1992.

Rawls theory of justice has been described as a form of justice as fairness. The theory is very similar to the works of Kantian and the utilitarian philosophy. Both Rawls and Kantian demonstrate rationality in their works since they are derived from reasoning. The theory portrays the method that should be used to assess social and political institutions based on morality. The theory takes the best phenomenon one can be in while making a new social contact. Normally we would be biased because we have prior information of whom we are. The theory suggests that while we are under the veil of ignorance; we take we know nothing about our sex, race, position in society and our abilities; we can be able to make rational and unbiased decisions that demonstrate morality and equality (Rawls 11).

One of the principles of justice deals in maintaining the political order in the society, Rawls advocates that every human should have equal rights to the simple liberty which is well-matched with other persons liberty. Some of the basic liberties are political liberties, liberty of conscience and basic human rights. Some of the basic human rights and freedoms are right of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of owning property and the right of not being arrested unlawfully.

Political liberty is the right to vote and run for an office. This is a fundamental liberty that is necessary in countries with democracy. The liberty is rather absolute, straight forward and cannot be easily derived off from the people. The liberty is rarely violated as the will of engaging in political activities is voluntary. As long as people have reached the recommended age of voting, they are at will to register as voters. However, few countries have compulsory voting system in the current world. In most countries, citizens are free to vote meaning one can decide whether to vote or abstain from voting. Political liberty also allows one to freely run for office that they are qualified. Political liberty sets out that a person should present their candidature to the society, who decides to take or reject the people who run for an office (Bailey et al 120).

The second principle of justice deals with social and economic inequalities. The inequalities are to be reorganized in a manner that eliminates the less fortunate derive the maximum benefit. The principle also tries to explain that offices and positions should be offered equal chances by promoting fairness. The second principle recognizes that people are on different economic platforms. One economic inequality that fits this principle is the family of origin. Based on the family of origins or family background, one can be well off than others meaning that some families could be on a different economic platform than others. The rearrangement of the economic inequalities is aimed at improving the less fortunate status. They protect them from deterioration on their economic and social status. The arrangement should ensure the less fortunate derive maximum benefit from the strategy to achieve economic equality. The family one comes from should have no influence in availing any available opportunities. The family one comes from may posses some talent that another family lacks. Talents should not determine the choices taken by someone as they may result to some form of inequality (Rawls 54).

In ensuring that public positions and offices are distributed to everyone based on fairness, and equal opportunity, family origins should not play part in undermining these. Merit has for a long time been valued as the best method offering a fair opportunity. Further scrutiny should be placed on ensuring that people have an equal opportunity of acquiring the skills necessary for a certain merit. Families which one comes from in most instances have had a stake in influencing acquisition of skills. Families of origin are usually at different social and economic status, even when the second principle is applied it may weaken political liberty and others measures geared toward fairness and equality.

The theory of justice tends to bring together liberty and equality. The aim of the theory is to achieve justice in the best manner possible while lacking bias. The theory provides a solution to parties who have political liberty and at the same time have different social and economic status contributed by their family backgrounds.

Works cited

Bailey Andrew, Brennan Samantha, Kymlicka Will & Levy Jacob. The Broadview Anthology of Social and Political Thought: From Plato to Nietzche. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2008.

Rawls John A Theory of Justice (Rev. Ed) Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999

Thesis: Sanders in his Doing Time in the Thirteenth Chair expresses that justice cannot be achieved by means of a mere discussion of existing evidence and questions the procedures which usually take place during the trial, while Alexie in his Capital Punishment points out that jurors can be guided by prejudices convicting people of crimes they have never committed; the issues raised in these works make it impossible to present a universal definition of justice.

It has always been difficult to work out a universal definition of justice. The notion of justice has been disturbing people throughout the centuries for justice cannot be unanimously recognized. It is often the case that what seems to be justice for one person is injustice for another, and it is impossible to treat somebody fairly without treating other people unfairly. In each case somebody gets hurt and claims that he/she has been treated unjustly. Even ancient philosophers wrangled over this issue; Copleston states that Socrates pointed out the following,

But if we can once attain to a universal definition of justice, which expresses the innermost nature of justice and holds good for all men, then we have something sure to go upon, and we can judge not only individual actions, but also the moral codes of different States, in so far as they embody or recede from the universal definition of justice. (Copleston 105)

Numerous writers and poets have also dedicated their works to finding the most appropriate definition of universal justice with each of them trying to take into account the versatility of this notion. Thus, Scott Russell Sanders essay Doing Time in the Thirteenth Chair is based on his own experience of being a juror and facing cases of injustice; he keeps to the point that justice cannot be established on the basis of testimonies alone and that jurors cannot be entrusted with carrying out a verdict. Another writer, Sherman Alexie, in his poem Capital Punishment presents a story of a cook making meal for a convict. The poem states that justice in court system always leads to someone being treated unjustly for the jurors often have biased attitudes towards defendants and often convict innocent people. Sanders in his Doing Time in the Thirteenth Chair expresses that justice cannot be achieved by means of a mere discussion of existing evidence and questions the procedures which usually take place during the trial, while Alexie in his Capital Punishment points out that jurors can be guided by prejudices convicting people of crimes they have never committed; the issues raised in these works make it impossible to present a universal definition of justice.

What should be mentioned above all is that both the authors question the role of jurors in proceedings and their ability to carry out just verdicts. Sanders notes that the jurors cannot be entrusted with passing the judgment, since they are often appointed randomly, And so the lawyers cull through the potential jurors, testing and chucking them like two men picking over apples in the supermarket(Sanders 135). The jurors are believed to be dependent on the opinion of the judge and vice versa because they all believe the prosecutor who can accuse a person of a crime and make the jurors believe that it is really so. For instance, Sanders describes a case when the prosecutor tried to prove the falseness of the witnesss testimony: And havent you been found on three occasions to be mentally incompetent to stand trial? & And havent you spent most of the past year in and out of mental institutions? (Sanders 143) Quite supportive of the opinion that the trial may be biased is the speaker of the Capital Punishment by Sherman Alexie. He asserts that the justice system is biased against those people who are not white, convicting dark skinned people of the most different crimes; this can be traced in the lines, Its mostly the dark ones/ who are forced to sit in the chair/ especially when white people die.(Purdy and Ruppert 419) In the time when the poem was written the society had biased attitudes towards white people this is why it was especially difficult to make up a universal definition of justice. Judging by these facts, it will not be possible to present the universal definition of justice unless one will be able to achieve the perfection of the system of justice. Nevertheless, this is not the only reason why such a definition cannot be worked out.

There cannot be a definition of universal justice until people are accused of crimes basing only on the testimonies of others. Scott Russell Sanders believes that the procedures which take place in the course of any trial are extremely biased. He notes that the testimonies can sometimes not be trusted to because the jurors never know for sure if they are true or false. The accused person may always blame other people for the crime to save him/herself: In this new guise he gave information that led to several arrests and some prison terms, including one for his cousin and two or three for other buddies. (Sanders 141) The authors opinion can be reliable because Sanders himself was a juror and knows how such people are selected. He knows from his own experience that jurors are unaware if the testimonies are indeed given by veracious and competent witnesses. A similar point can be observed in Alexies Capital Punishment. The speaker of the poem keeps to the idea that, once a person has been convicted, the jurors will never change the verdict for an opposite because the person will be tried according to the very same testimonies; the following lines of his Capital Punishment express this idea, I once heard a story/ about a black man who was electrocuted/ in that chair and lived to tell about it/ before the court decided to sit him back down/ an hour later and kill him all over again. (Purdy and Ruppert 419) This could be a sign that the person was innocent and it could have made the judge look the case over once again. These lines prove that even during subsequent trials, if such take place, the person is tried according to the same testimonies, regardless of their being true or false. Therefore, universal justice, as well as its definition, will not exist until there is a way to obtain only veracious testimonies. This, however, is still not ending then list of the reasons why the definition of universal justice cannot be presented.

It is impossible to present a universal definition of justice since the judges, being unable to switch their places with defendants, will never understand how much important their verdict is. For instance, Sanders in his Doing Time in the Thirteenth Chair during one of the trials compares himself with the defendant. He refers to him as to double image (Sanders 151); it helps to realize the whole sadness and confusion which usually can be felt during proceedings. If jurors and defendants could switch their places, the jurors would understand how important it is to carry out only just verdicts. Alexie also supports this idea. The responsibility for just verdicts can be felt in the lines, If any of us/ stood for days on top of a barren hill/ during an electrical storm/ then lightning would eventually strike us/ and wed have no idea for which of our sins/we were reduced to headlines and ash(Purdy and Ruppert 422). These lines show that sometimes people are accused of crimes unjustly and bear punishment undeservedly; they symbolize the feelings of an innocent person who has been executed for the crime he/she never committed. The jurors are responsible for the verdicts they carry out, since they determine the future of the defendant.

In sum, it has been proved that it is impossible to present a definition of universal justice. The works by Scott Russell Sanders and Sherman Alexie exemplify that injustice often takes place during the trials. Thus, it is impossible to define universal justice because the jurors can have biased attitudes towards the defendants; the testimonies of the witnesses cannot be trusted to because one never knows whether they are veracious; lastly, the jurors cannot be sure whether they carry out a just verdict or punish the defendant undeservedly because they are unaware of what it is like to be a defendant. All these issues complicate our notions of justice and make it impossible to present a definition of universal justice.

Works Cited

Copleston, Frederick C. A history of philosophy. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003.

Purdy, John and Ruppert, James. Nothing But the Truth: An Anthology of Native American Literature. Prentice Hall, 2001.

Sanders, Scott R. The Paradise of Bombs. University of Georgia Press, 1987.

Then, that exchange and meddling is injustice. Or to put it the other way around: For the moneymaking, auxiliary, and guardian classes each to do its own work in the city is the opposite. Thats justice, isnt it, and makes the city just?

Introduction

It is believed that Plato advocated a society that would have mainly three classes. The ruling class also called the guardian classes, whose duties are the protection and benefit of the community. This class was instituted to ensure that all actions performed by them were for the enhancement of benefits to all community members.

Next is the auxiliary class, consisting mainly of soldiers and law enforcers who helped the guardian class to serve the community in the best possible manner. They would help the rulers in executing their executive decisions more effectively and meaningfully and address issues of dissension and non-compliance. And finally, agricultural trading class that would provide resources and earn money for the services they rendered to the other classes.

Justice does not encourage switching of individual roles

This compartmentalization was not only in the physical aspects governing various classes but also the mental mind sets and attributes for each class of society.

The highest class the guardians exercised their mental faculties and intellect, their wisdom, while for the warriors it was honor and courage; for the moneymakers it was business ethics and money discipline. Thus, it was virtually impossible for a warrior to perform a traders job or for a trader to assume the role of the guardian, unless he was endowed with such skills which could put it into commanding use. Thus the perception of justice emanated from the fact that these classes, or even characteristics were in tight compartment and each faculty managed its own business without intrusion and the concept of Justice- minding your own business and not interfering with other people.  (Plato; the Republic: Guardians and Auxiliaries, 204).

Justice means minding ones own business and noninterference attitude

The principle of specialization keeps the farmer from carpentering, and the carpenter from farming. More important, it keeps both the farmer and the carpenter from becoming warriors and rulers. The principle of specialization separates society into three classes: the class of producers (including farmers, craftsmen, doctors, etc.), the class of warriors, and the class of rulers&.. Producers stay out of political affairs, only worrying themselves about the business of ruling insofar as they need to obey what the rulers say and the warriors enforce. A city set up in this way, Plato contends, is a just city. (The Republic: Philosophical Themes, Arguments & Ideas).

Thus, unjustified assumption of non-assigned jobs could be disastrous for the economy and in simple terms, simply unjust. And conversely, when each of our three classes (businessmen, auxiliaries and guardians) does its own job and minds its own business that, by contrast, is justice and makes our state just. (Plato; the Republic: Guardians and Auxiliaries, 206).

The main question that now arises is  What is justice? It could be in terms of minding ones own business and not seeking concern in the affairs of others. Sequelly, therefore, injustice would be when a person does not mind his own business and interferes, or meddles in the affairs of others. However, it is argued by Thrasymachus that justice is an excuse by powerful and politically influential persons to subjugate the poor and oppressed. The advantageous persons are those who could violate it and lead their own independent lives without bothering about justice. Again, it is seen that many who are subdued by justice notions are not able to reach their full potential since they always consider the just results of their actions and inactions. Justice could also be seen in terms of benefiting ones friends and harming ones enemies.

Some theories advocate that justice is machinations of rich on poor people

Although it could be said that justice is a contextual term and could take up different connotations in different situations, the fact is that justice is regarded for its own sake, rather than for its consequences. People believed in justice since they are fearful of the consequences of being unjust to others. Thus, it is the punitive aspect of justice that is feared, and not the fact that justice is a way of life and helps sustain life on earth. Another argument on justice is that it is an imposition by the influential and the powerful (guardians) on the masses through the use of auxiliaries. Thus, the aspect of tyranny is also present, in that people may be debarred from exercising their right through the machinations of guardians, and there could be miscarriages of justice.

Equal rights for men and women

It is believed that justice is awe inspiring and helps the guardians in administering law and order in society. Again according to Plato, the right kind of justice would enforce if women and men are given equal rights to education, work opportunites, etc. in order to enable them to contribute equally to society like men. Of course, there are certain works which women cannot undertake because of their physical lack of strength. But otherwise, it is possible for both men and women to contribute to society in more or less equal proportions. Again, it is seen that Plato did not approve of family ties, since it would tie the person down and make him/her forget social commitments and responsibility.

Eliminate family life for pursuing social causes

He therefore advocates the use of mandatory baby nurseries, in which children would have to be kept, until they are ready to assume auxiliary duties. These nurseries would ensure that children get the same kind of treatment and education for assuming roles in later lives. The advantages of the system from Platos point of view are, first, that it makes it possible to breed good citizens, and second, that it gets rid of the distracting loyalties, affections and interests of the family system, and divert them to the service of the community. (Plato; the Republic: Women and the Family, 237).

It is seen that Plato denounced the aggrandizement of private property by individuals, stating that property needs to be used for common good and all people need to have access to property. If they acquire private property in land, houses, or money, they will become farmers and men of business instead of guardians, and harsh tyrants instead of partners in their dealings with their fellow citizens, with whom they will live on terms of mutual hatred and suspicion. (Plato; the Republic: Guardians and Auxiliaries,185).

Further, regarding justice it is said that it concerned itself with internal or extrinsic interests and not external actions. A man who practices justice would not permit the three elements within him to transgress each other but would like to keep each of them in distinct compartments, in disciplined and well rounded manner. When the internal constituents are well bound into a unified whole, he would be able to face any calamity or stress situation with equanimity and grace, without becoming unduly fluttered or disturbed. Thus a just person would be non-interfering, both in terms of his external world and also his internal build up and would live in peace and harmony with his world and environment.

Individual justice is determination of political justice system

At the conclusion of Chapter IV, Plato shows that individual justice is just a reflection of political justice system. The 3 point structures found in individuals match with that found in nations. The first aspect is rational part of the soul that is always seeking truth and justice, the second part of the soul reinforces it and the appetitive part seeks fulfillment of desires and follows the rationale. It is analogous to the country where each of the three classes of society, in fact, is subjugated by one of the three parts of the soul. Producers are conquered by their appetitestheir urges for money, luxury, and pleasure. Warriors are subjected by their spirits, the source of their courage. Kings, or guardians are ruled by their rational faculties and perennial quest for wisdom. (The Republic Plato: Overview). However, it is very difficult to establish the evidence that justice needs to be pursued for its own sake instead of fear of its consequences. The question that could crop up next would be in terms of whether justice would have the same effect if the consequences were removed or eliminated. Thus criminals could go about their nefarious activities without having to worry about its consequences, or just persons may become unjust or tyrannical once they are aware of its benefits and no punishment deal. Again the need to be just and reasoned is needed for the pursuits of good activities and deeds. Justice is to be followed since it leads on the supreme good  The form of the Good. It is seen that in final stages of The Republic, after justice has been established as the maximum good. (The Republic Plato: Overview).

No conflict between 3 elements both at individualized and governing level

According to Plato, the norms of justice both the individual and nation status, assume non conflict between the three elements that are found. On the other hand, it is also to be seen that the characteristics of just society in terms of judicious law making (guardians), law enforcement ( auxiliary ) and profit making (traders) need to be imbued in the justice concept just as individual traits like courage and honor (Warrior), intellect and decision (Guardians ) and providing food and shelter (traders) helps in having a better understanding of Platos Republic from an unbiased and progressive outlook. There needs to be no overlapping of the characteristics of justice, and its implication on it that would render it unjust, and open to actions and proceedings, which is undesirable by the advocates of the system. If the warrior traded his honor and pride for intellect, or ruling capability, chaos would result. Similarly if traders wanted to become warriors, the situation would worsen. Thus, it is seen that in order for justice to prevail and order to remain sustainable, role playing needs to be correctly performed. The specialization in trade needs to be observed, and occupations clearly redefined and charted to suit individual and company needs.

Further, it is seen that justice is always followed with genuine pleasures. In all probability, none of these is actually believed to provide as the main reason why justice is sought-after. In its place, the popularity of justice is likely associated to the close nexus between just lives and the various manifestations. According to Plato, the concept of justice was valuable even when considered in the light of the benefits and advantages it bestowed on its users, especially when its connections with Forms are considered. However, it is necessary to consider justice on its own merits and not the fear of the repercussions of not being just, or being tyrannical and the grievous after-effects to the tyrant. The concept of justice is good since it brings humans closer to Forms that are good; thus by relating to justice and the Forms, individuals are also rendered good. However, the consistency elements of justice need to be constantly monitored.

Conclusions

The above deliberations have considered the aspects of justice and non-justice in the context of Platos writings on the Republic. His peregrinations in this controversial aspects have stemmed from the fact that many contemporary philosophers had denounced justice saying that it was a tool used by powerful administrators to seek compliance and obedience from the meek subjects. Since the subjects had no choice but to obey, it was not justice in true sense of the term but only forced justice. Justice loses its credibility when it is practiced for fear of consequences and for the role played by other actors in the executory aspects of justice. According to the writer, justice imposed is not justice but a kind of punishment for past sins. In order for justice to prevail and the city be just, it is necessary that the persons responsibility for its maintenance be honest and have commitment for the cause. It is also necessary that the subject is approached with an open mind, in order that maximum advantage is gained.

The just man tries to imitate the Forms by making his own soul as orderly and harmonious as the Forms themselves. (The Republic: Philosophical Themes, Arguments & Ideas). It is seen that the study has considered the aspect of justice from the main premise that it is not imposed but is sought for its own benefits. When particular aspects of justice and its ability to instill compliance from individuals is considered, its close associations with Forms makes it sought after, and this perhaps could be one of its redeeming features in the present context of justice.

Works Cited

Plato; the Republic: Guardians and Auxiliaries.

Plato; the Republic: Women and the Family.

The Republic Plato: Overview. Spark Notes. 2009. Web.

The Republic Plato: Philosophical Themes, Arguments & Ideas. Spark Notes. 2009. Web.

Descartes View

The concept of justice enables human beings living in different societies to be fair and rational in their dealings. Descartes reveals that peoples perceptions and attitudes are influenced by strong religious beliefs. God is the source of all good things that happen to man and his teachings have a positive influence on people, regardless of their cultural and social backgrounds.

As a result, they are able to make clear distinctions between right and wrong actions to ensure they do not deviate from Gods real teachings. Peoples sense of judgment makes them understand consequences they are likely to face if they choose to engage in different actions (Bennet 2). Therefore, Descartes emphasises that theological ideas influence how people understand and apply justice.

Descartes arguments show that religion has a big role to play in making people understand justice and its benefits. In this regard, it shapes their ideals about different issues that affect how they enjoy various liberties and freedoms. Descartes shows that peoples emotions are shaped by encounters they have with other people from similar or different backgrounds.

These interactions enable them to have common beliefs and principles which form the basis of laws and social codes that are observed by people living in different societies (Bennet 5). Descartes arguments show that theological understanding makes people to submit to governmental authority and the rule of law.

Platos View

The Euthyphro is a dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates regarding the application of justice under the ancient Greek justice system. This dialogue demonstrates the ignorance people have about the concept of justice and how it is applied in different social and political systems.

Socrates has been accused of impiety because of his liberal statements on Greek gods and religious beliefs. Through the dialogue, Socrates is interested in uncovering the real meaning of piety and how it relates to the concept of the justice under the Athenian legal system (Plato). One of the major arguments that come out of the debate is how the concept of piety is understood. Euthyphro insists that piety involves actions that please the gods; a view opposed by Socrates who insists that the gods do not always have similar opinions.

Socrates and Euthyphro show that the application of justice in different societies is not always fair. As revealed in the dialogue, the law cannot only be influenced by religious teachings because human beliefs and lifestyles are constantly changing. Therefore, people need to analyse different liberal positions that serve as pillars on which legal principles are founded. This will ensure that they come up with realistic and fair laws.

In this context, religious doctrines should not be the only basis that influences how laws are formed, applied and enforced in various societies (Plato). Effective justice systems serve the interests of both minority and majority segments of the population without bias. Theologically influenced interpretations of the law are not likely to be responsive to expectations of people living in different societies. They are can be easily manipulated by influential people in the society to achieve their own selfish interests.

Comparisons and Contrasts

Descartes arguments that peoples values systems are influenced by religious teachings are true. Platos insistence that the application of justice should not only be interpreted from a religious angle is accurate.

Descartes fails to note that some religious teachings are not similar and as such, this brings about confusion regarding the way justice needs to be applied. Platos arguments are ambiguous because they do not offer a rational basis about how religion can be used to ensure the application of justice is done in a fair and rational manner.

Works Cited

Bennet, Jonathan. Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy. Early Modern Texts. Early Modern Texts, April 2007. Web.

Plato. Euthyphro. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. The Internet Classics Archive. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2009. Web.

One of the biggest problems of mankind, unfortunately, yet unsolved, is the one of the government rules and the citizen of the country in question. The philosophy that underlies the problem depends to a great extent on the peoples spiritual qualities and the morals possessed  or not. For what its worth, it seems to me that the dialogue that the philosopher has with the nation within himself is to be solved once and for all, or  well, or we might have another crush of the empire.

Now I would like to draw your attention to the meaning hidden in the book by the great philosopher and the message he tried to convey through the pages of considering the delicate material.

Taking into consideration the fact that Plato was actually trying to create the image of the ideal state and show the means which in his understanding are the key issues to building up the society of his dream, I should say that this book is a treasure trove of the ancient ideas, for it has never been so explicit that a man, even being a philosopher, was so much a stranger to his epoch. His ideas would have been greeted more warmly in the modern society that lacks the very certainty that his works are breathing with&

So, coming to the point, the basics of his ideas that are being so much discussed and argued nowadays, I want you to concentrate on those theses that cause the most inflamed discussions today.

At first, this is the one that claims that justice must be the interest of the rulers  well, leaving that alone, it is quite clear with this one,  and its continuation saying that justice by agreement must take place in the republic, otherwise it would not be the state with enough power and influence. That is what the great master says:

Plato males Socrates focus the conversation on the notion of justice, which will be the main topic for the rest of his work. This focus, Plato thinks, is proper because of the central role of that notion in problems about conduct, and because of the widespread mistake, made by people such as Thrasymachus, about whether or not justice is beneficial to its possessor. (White 63)

Practically, that means that Plato thinks of an ideal reign where the ruler must not take advantage of his power for his own profit but act in such a way, to make the people of his state satisfied and happy and prosperous. That means a certain control of the ruler, in fact, a total control, which presumes that the ruler is honest enough not to make the situation turn worse for the citizens of his state.

There are not many contradictions so far, except the one that Plato speaks of Utopia that can never be put to practice. It is also the justice within a man that he is speaking about. That sounds rather utopia-like, again, but quite positive and at least rising the wish to try this way of building up a society. However, Santas argues that the analogy between the state and the person as the body and its parts is rather complicated and not quite complete.

The analogy is both suggestive and problematic. It suggests that the final goal of the inquiry is to find out what a just person is, but since justice exists in society as well, it would be easier to discover justice in the society and then in the individual. (56)

Of course, you might as why this approach seem to Santas more natural and clearer. As he states, that is because society and justice in it are more public and observable than the soul and justice in the soul. Only the individual herself can look into her own soul and observe justice in it, others cannot see into her soul; they can observe at most the individuals behaviour, which, as Thrasymachus and Glaucon made abundantly clear, can be deceptive. (56)

Well, at this point it seems clear that, indeed, Plato is speaking of the ideal, or, like it is popular to say now, a transparent society with all its minor problems and drawbacks featured in full to the ruler.

Meanwhile, it must be just as obvious that the ruler himself must have no flaws and be the person never to make any mistake or slip. That sounds impossible for any society, whenever or wherever it existed, in Ancient Greece or contemporary Europe. It is a fake. We are all human beings, after all.

It is also very important to note that Plato in his second nook of Republica makes a detailed and clear subdivision of the citizen into five layers of society. That was big progress then, both in politics and psychology, for the work of his comprises both the human factor and the economics of the state.

So, the message o his was that all the people in Ancient Greece could make four layers of society, which are: the merchants, farmers, craftsmen and wage-earners. As Socrates remarked later, the description lacked one more layer, which was the philosopher-kings, but it seems that at that point philosophy could not be associated with the governing body even by a man of huge imagination who Plato was, no doubts.

Still back to the discussion, Plato argued that justice had to be a virtue of excellence. That was the very root of the contradictions that modern scientists and political scientists had when considering the work of the philosopher.

The main idea here is to define whether a person and thus the society is just or not, and the problem of this definition is the problem of psychology that Plato, whatever bright a philosopher he might have been, was not able to solve.

As Santas suggests, Another way to define a just person and a just society is to apply the concept of justice first to a person, define it fir this case, and then conceive of a just society composed of just persons as defined. (57).

However, that also might be a problem, for where the crowd makes the justice, a single person can be a traitor, and vice versa. A clear-cut example of such peculiarity of the crowd psychology is the so-called lynching, where the crowd can be mistaken as well, and at times it acts under the spur of the moment, not considering whether the accused is guilty or not. Many a poor victim has been executed in such a way to be rehabilitated further on, but  alas!  too late.

So that is why there are heavy doubts concerning whether the justice of the crowd is a reasonable notion at all. It must be also taken into account that it is much easier to take control over the mind of the crowd than the mind of a single person. Flocking together, people lose the ability to think individually.

Yet on the other hand White sounds most reasonable when claiming, & the connection between justice as Plato explains it and both what is good for the city and the goodness of the city. What makes the city good is precisely the fact that it is made to adhere to the Principle of the Natural Division of Labor, according to which each element in the city performs its own natural task. (19)

In fact, though it seems quite a weird thing for a nowadays ordinary citizen that such an obvious idea should be explained, there is one thing that should not be forgotten, namely that the very Greek word that stands for justice, which is dikaiosyne, haws the meaning that has nothing to do with the ideas expressed by Plato.

To wind up the discussion and come to a certain conclusion, I would say that the freedom of each and every citizen of the country together with the total trust in the governor is something that sounds more like heaven or something of the kind. This could not endure the human nature that in its natural egoism searches for something that is prior to himself than to the rest of the society.

However, if every single man as the citizen of the state understands the level of the responsibility that he bears, as well as the ruler understands his, there could happen something that might change the life into a new Utopia. As White puts it,

What is important to bear in mind is that the term polis connotes a certain degree of independence of government and self-sufficiency of economy. These are features that Plato emphasizes throughout.

Plato tried to create the idea of the perfect state, the perfect citizen, and the perfect ruler. Unfortunately, this was not achieved in Ancient Greece; otherwise, we could have an example to follow. However, the book still shows how distanced the real and the desirable could be. The great philosopher showed the way out as if saying. My business is to tell you, and you are welcome to make it true. Still, he was wise enough to foresee that the pathetic tries would lead to nowhere and that this is another Babel Tower to build. Striving for perfection as something unachievable is all that there is to a human being. But at least that fills our lives with sense.

Works Cited

Santas, Gerasimos. Understanding Platos Republic. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 2010. Print.

White, Nicolas P. A Comparison to Platos Republic. New York NY: Hacket Publishing, 1979. Print.

John Rawls is undoubtedly one of the most debatable political philosophers of our time. His theory on justice- specifically focusing on social justice- has brought to light several criticisms from friends, colleagues, and other philosophers.

While not out rightly declaring he is wrong, I cannot help but find a few flaws in what his concepts of theory and social justice postulate.

In order to explain my point of divergence from Rawlss theory, it is paramount that we first look at Rawls understanding of the concept of justice. According to Rawls (4), justice is

&..a set of principles required for choosing the various social arrangements which determine the division of advantages and for underwriting an agreement on the proper distributive shares. These principles are the principles of social justice; they provide a way of assigning duties and privileges in the basic institutions of society and they define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of social corporation (p. 4).

This is a description of what justice is meant to be and look like. It is the desired result as well as the intended course of action to achieve justice. Rawls further agrees that different parties with different concepts of justice can still come to an agreement as far as they seek to make this decision under what he describes as a veil of ignorance.

Under this veil, individuals are to come upon a rational decision by using certain principles. This principle in particular requires an agent in the process of decision making to assume a hypothetical position where he or she does not know or care about his personal attributes, assets, societal status and other personal details as well as those of the other people.

The individual should make the decision behind this veil. In so doing, he is more likely to come up with a more just conclusion.

Social justice is derived from judging an individuals character and actions and paralleling them to the immediate individuals and their actions towards him as well as others. All available evidence is looked at and objective moral criterion is established.

This view can best be summarized as giving a man his due in the context of his relation to others and others to him. Social justice is pegged on the obligations an individual owes to others and others to him. This directly translates to rights.

Rights should be the criterion which determines whether the actions an individual commits are just or not. They should also be the ones determining what actions an individual should take against other individuals. Hospers (616) argues,

&.but must not justice be embedded in the concept of human rights& if each man has a right to his life, the products of his labor and his own free and independent judgment, justice will not be violated. Provided these rights are in the legal system of the nation and no exception made& (p. 616).

Rawls theory makes individual rights subject to societal approval in the process of dispensing justice. He presents situations where individuals rights may be revoked or overlooked in the process of delivering judgment. The assumption Rawls makes to the effect that in so doing the least advantaged individual benefits more from such an agreement is wrong (Sandel 2).

Rawls Response

Justice is that decision upon which free individuals who are equal will come to agree on as the basic terms on which cooperation in the society will be achieved. Such individuals will not regard their colleagues as deserving more or less than what they have agreed on.

They will not base such a decision on their individual strengths, achievements or position in society since they are all equal at that particular point of judgment. In such a position, each decision seems to be more driven by the inherent moral values an individual has at heart.

Their judgment is neither clouded by bad experience nor poisoned by individual desires. It is instead fuelled and championed by what they feel is right and rational. This however can only be achieved under conditions that are hypothetically fair for this judgment.

Justice as a form of fairness is the idea that drives such an endeavor. For any individual or group in the society to come up with justice as a fairness principle, they must all resume the original position.

Such a position where an individual is not tied or bound to any personal conflict of interest presents one with the clarity and rationality to make a decision. In such a position, an individual weighs the probabilities of outcome and bases judgment on such options as the most detrimental of all results.

The concept of a veil of ignorance does not undermine individual rights. Rights are inherent and irrespective of the annotations and writings that brought them to life, they have always been with an individual. In deciding justice under the veil of ignorance, one does not rebuke his rights or those of other individuals in the society.

The veil of ignorance clouds perception and eliminates the possibility of bias. It however does not undermine an individuals inherent feelings and desire to achieve. In the original position, one views himself as having no claim over his personal achievements. This is a position of belonging and should not be confused with a solitary act of separating an individual from the concepts of his or her rights.

The claim of such personal effects and attributes belonging to the society immerses an individual in the process of society building. This individual will undertake his personal life and achievements while reflecting on them as a contribution to the society.

The first principle further advocates for these individual rights but against the outlook of society. Each person &&(is) to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with (a) similar liberty for others (Rawls, p. 53).

The difference principle agitates for correction in the distribution of wealth in the society. This principle benefits the less advantaged members of the society. It is noted that injustice does not actually manifest in a particular group of individuals in the society.

On the contrary, it chooses to prey on a specific congregation of people. The less advantaged are to be thus considered whenever making a decision for it to be considered as fair.

Cohens Criticism of Rawls Theory of Justice in Rescuing Justice and Equality

The principles of justice as proposed by Rawls have been a subject of contemptuous debate. From teacher to student, many philosophers have come up in defense of or against Rawls and his theory of justice. A particular response by Cohen in his book Rescuing Justice and Equality has drawn a lot of attention over the years, provoking deep thought and analysis of justice and its manifestation in society.

In the essay, Cohen primarily targeted Rawls idea of the difference principle. He tries to portray its impracticality to society and poses a variety of situational conditions that should be considered when using this principle.

This essay will dwell on that argument from a more simplified and practical point of view. Many people primarily do agree that whereas Cohens was a just and vigorous attack on Rawlss theory, he might have failed to put his arguments in a comprehensible and easy-to-grab at-first-read manner.

The Difference Principle

Rawls believes that a certain set of principles are needed to govern decision making for society to envision justice and present it to its members. The difference principle which states that &&.social (and) economic inequalities are to be arranged (so that they are) to be of the greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society (Cohen p.47) is one of these principles.

It attempts to govern decision making based on resource allocation. It assumes a semblance of justice by making it appear more beneficial to the less privileged. Cohen poses a very thought provoking question:

&&suppose once again that we are inclined to believe that inequalities are justified only if they are strictly necessary to benefit the worst off but we find, to our dismay that we simply cannot work hard without unequalizing incentive.

Would we not think that the distribution was becoming more just if and as we become more able to work hard with less unequalizing reward and therefore to the greater benefit of the worst off? (Cohen p.154).

The argument here is further clarified by the next question posed by Cohen. He asks:

Suppose differently, thus far that it is not possible to run an economy efficiently, nor therefore, to the benefit of the worst off, without assigning high rewards to well placed people, but now for purely organizational rather than for motivational reasons (Cohen 156).

The question poses a rather daunting overall query. Would it be just to do so? In his arguments, Cohen displays the injustice presented by Rawls difference principle as a bid to present justice. In other words, he shows the irony of how Rawls efforts to present justice end up bringing injustice instead.

While it would seem justified for the worst off members of the society to benefit from most judgments, it is still unjust for the better placed in the same society to suffer the losses that arise from their hard work.

They should be left to enjoy the fruits of their hard labor. This in essence is a reward to them and should be geared towards their motivation rather than the process of delivering justice to the less deserving.

While many issues are pegged on moral tributes, justice cannot solely be determined by such morally arbitrary concepts. Delivering justice while presenting a socially-contemplated inequality is not just an antonym to justice; it could also serve to derelict the society.

Inequality and Justice

In its canonical form, the difference principle declares that equalities are unjust if they render the worst off better off. Rawls however does not draw that conclusion openly. Rawls seems to be at liberty, saying &&.inequality is unjust unless it does not harm the badly off (while thinking) equality is unjust unless it does not harm these worse off individuals as well (Cohen 158).

With this kind of reasoning, the difference principle might as well speak for both. However, Rawls chooses to see it fit that inequality has a case to answer while equality does not. Why should it be that inequality which seems to harm a worst off person is unjust while that which benefits the worst off person is fair?

Veil of Ignorance

With reference to Cohens argument, we can take the example of the tales of Robin Hood. Supposedly, he would rob from the rich and give to the poor. Supposing we took the original position and had to make a decision while under the hypothetical position behind the veil of ignorance. Remember behind this veil, we are not aware of our individuality or that of other people in the society.

Aspects such as talent, wealth and family status are oblivious to our knowledge. How then does robbing from the rich to give to the poor an act of justice. We do not recognize their individuality and are in no position to determine their source or means of livelihood.

Luck or maybe some unforeseen force found it fit for them to be better off than the rest. Robbing them and giving their possession to the poor, no matter how charitable the act may seem, does not sound justified based on morality and good practices in the society.

Talent and Equality

Rawls basis or his starting point for equality- where talent is involved- moves in a different direction from that of Cohen. Rawls posits that differences in talent do not justify inequality if the original position was indeed that of equality (Cohen p.168). Rawls view of talent and its reward to the individual is somewhat vague as is displayed in the difference principle.

This is in contrast with the moral and arbitrary presupposition of individuality and background. It is not the individuals fault if they happen to benefit from the growth of their talent. Incentives offered from such fronts should be regarded as personal motivation and need not be regarded as a basis of presentation of inequality and therefore lack of justice in the society.

Trying to achieve equal distribution of justice by letting individual talent benefit the worst off in society is inconsistent and primarily an infringement on ones personal ambition. It is such thoughts that promote complacency in the society where people are not motivated to perform.

Rawls In Light of Cohens Criticism

In this section, the researcher looked at Rawls theory of justice and how it has been criticized by Cohen in his writing. In this section, the researcher will critically analyze whether Rawls theory can be redeemed from Cohens critique.

From the outset, the researcher would like to point out that while the theory has some strong premises, it has some fundamental flaws and weaknesses that may make it irredeemable.

Belief that Rawlss theory of social justice is somewhat redeemable from Cohens attacks is to me untenable. Whereas Rawlss theory is indeed an ideal and very well proposed argument, it is not practical at this time and age in society. Society is changing at a tremendous rate.

Some of the concepts that were once considered the beacons of justice and its delivery in the society are no longer practical at this time of societal complexity. Rawls proposes a theory that in light of the presented criticism, seems to undermine the principle of human rights. Human rights have become the solid guides to the concept of societal justice.

Their infringement and denial to any individual irrespective of position constitutes injustice. The process of deciding justice and its course of direction should not be made from the original position presupposed by Rawls.

Justice in the society should be arrived at via a carefully examined and detailed procedure encompassing liberties, evidence, rationality and morality.

Cohen makes it clear when he says that while human nature may seem generally unjust, justice is inherent in humanity and can prevail. In other words, justice is to be found in each and every human being in the society.

The problem is making the various members of the society behave in a just manner. It is not that incentive given on the basis of human nature presents injustice. He states that inequality will always be present and part of humanity due to the difference in human nature (Cohen pp. 168-170). Justice, however, should not be pegged on these inequalities.

A better and more subtle method of dealing with inequality should be identified. This method should not in my opinion infringe on individual rights. An individual in society may be directly responsible for their position in society.

However, they cannot be directly held responsible for the position of other individuals in the society unless they commit an act that will directly tamper with the rights of the others.

Works Cited

Cohen, Gregory. Rescuing Justice and Equality. Oxford: Harvard University Press, 2008. Print.

Hospers, John. An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. 2nd ed. 1967. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall. Print.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard: Harvard Press, 1977. Print.

Sandel, Michael. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Print.

Introduction

The Republic is one of the most famous works from the ancient world, written by Plato, a student of Socrates. Similarly to many of his other works, the Republic follows Socrates and his friends and acquaintances, depicting their discussions and contemplations. The books begin with the discussion of the ideal city and more importantly, the concept of justice. Plato, through Socratic dialogue, battles with the difficult topic by introducing the imaginary ideal city and using its socio-political structure to explain the general notion of it. He then proceeds to narrow the concept down in the following books, claiming individual justice to be analogous of the more general notion. The concept of justice as following ones role as assigned at birth is explained through both the political structure of an ideal and just city and the description of a righteous man.

Platos Republic

Although the Socratic dialogue depicted by Plato is titled The Republic in English, the central debate of the books is on justice and ethics rather than politics. Although politics and discussions of regimes are used to solidify the points made by Socrates and his friends, the title can be deceiving. The confusion comes from the translation of the work from Ancient Greek, its two original titles being Politeia and peri dikaiou (Uebersax). The former title is most closely translated to Regimes or Political Systems but is most widely known as The Republic (Uebersax). The latter title, which is often translated as On Justice, can be more accurately interpreted as On the Righteous Person (Uebersax). In fact, Plato uses the idealistic political regime described in the first few books to introduce the readers to the concepts of justice, rather than making a political statement.

The discussions between Socrates and his fellows begin with the contemplations of justice and a just society, during which the three types of people that exist are introduced  Producers, Auxiliaries, and Guardians. According to Plato, the harmony between the three groups is essential to the prosperity and utilitarian happiness of the city. Furthermore, in this ideal city, or republic, people must stick to their roles as parts of these groups. The first group, the Producers, are craftsmen, farmers, and other producing professions, the largest class of Platos society. The Auxiliaries, or warriors, are responsible for the protection of the city and its people. Lastly, the Guardians are the ruling class, the people that can tell right from wrong, and who live solely for the good of the city. According to Plato, the ideal and enlightened city, based on justice and virtue, has a philosopher king from the latter group governing the people.

The Guardians of the Republic

The Guardians, as mentioned above, are described by Plato as the servers of the people and its rulers. They are to dedicate their lives and crafts to the state fully, practicing nothing more in their lives, and avoiding even laughter (Plato). He further describes them to have no private property, and even the children of the Guardians are to be shared within them (Plato). Although the fellows of Socrates argue that the Guardians would not be happy as individuals, their sole goal in life is to be honorable and therefore just.

Importance of the Guardians

Therefore, the discussion of the Guardians is central to the Justice theory, as presented by Plato. According to Socrates, the Guardians are the epitome of just and righteous men, defining Justice as the sense of duty by the citizen. The Guardians, who are only motivated by their duty to the city, are therefore prime examples of such an idealistic concept. It is the dutifulness of the Guardians that allows for the prosperity of the ideal city, which is built on the concoction of human virtue and universal values and principles (Plato). The Guardians had not only to follow these principles, but to be educated on them, and to be wise enough to make the right judgments in all the political situations (Plato). Most of all, the Guardians had to be content with their roles, even if it meant sacrificing individual happiness for the sake of the society.

Platos View on Justice

However, it is not only the Guardians who, according to Plato, have the duty in the just city to be content with their roles and to follow them. The Auxiliaries support the rule of the Guardians, while the Producers obey by the rule. By Platos definition of justice, the ideal city has all its citizens practicing their roles, the inner callings that they are born with, and their roles only. The society that sees its members fill and entertain their assigned roles daily is, therefore, just, and an ideal city. More generally, Plato applies such definitions to the human nature and the concept of a righteous, or a just, man. Adopting the definitions of the three types of people in his ideal city, Plato uses them to explain the three components of the human soul  rational, spirited, and appetitive. These components mirror the roles of the three classes, making the just man the reflection of the ideal city. In his soul and mind, therefore, the rational component governs, supported by the spirited part, while the appetitive, or the lustful, is submissive to the rule.

The justness of such man lies in the balance within his souls components. Similarly to the ideal city, the ideal man is one that is governed by rationality  however, one that is not devoid of other parts of his soul, merely in control of them. This view on justice, as proposed by Socrates, differs from the definitions proposed by his fellow debaters. Furthermore, Socrates emphasizes the fact that it is in the individuals interest to be just, analogous to it being in the citys interests for it to be well-ordered.

Mind and Actions

Although Plato presents the readers with vivid metaphors and a detailed discussion of justice, as well as the republic, he fails to address the action part of justice. While his argument is extensive on the matter of the balanced soul, it does not take into account concrete actions. If a person is rational and in control of his souls compartments, it does not necessarily follow that he will act in a just way towards others, which might also be considered a part of justice. There is a disparity in Platos argument in that although a person might be just by his definition when in isolation, there is no guarantee that he will remain just in social situations. Since there is a clear distinction between maintaining order in ones soul and maintaining order in society and having the desire to do one does not lead to the desire to do the other.

Conclusion

Nevertheless, Plato maintains a strong argument on his definition of justice and creates an elaborate running metaphor to convey it to others. The just city, which functions in the most efficient way and provides the high utilitarian happiness value, is representative of a just soul. Balance and control, which might mean sacrifices of short-term pleasures, according to Plato lead to a just life. The Guardians, or the rational part of the soul, make the well-ordered living possible. As a result, justice of the soul and the individual is achieved.

Works Cited

Plato. The Republic. Translated by Benjamin Jowett, 1998.The Project Gutenberg eBook, Web.

Uebersax, John. On the Ancient Titles of Platos Republic.Satyagraha, 2016, Web.

Introduction

John Rawls, in his work A Theory of Justice, considers how application of logic in justice system would save the society from common problems like designing societal systems, distributing social and economic advantages, and allotting duties to people in society among other issues. Rawls shares Immanuel Kants thoughts arguing that people should do unto others as they expect them to be done; the principle of nature.

Rawls uses what he calls the Difference Principle and the Principle of Equal Liberty to explain his theory; moreover, he expounds this principle by introducing what he calls, the original position, and, the veil of ignorance. If only people made justice decisions that would be ideal to them were they to be judged by the same decisions, then justice would be even for everyone.

Rawls Theories of Justice

Rawls starts by introducing the original position. At the original position, the involved people would make pass judgment covered by a veil of ignorance. According to Rawls, when people are in the original position, no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like.

I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. ¹ Therefore, at this position, the society would be void of things like talents, status or any other form of societal social distinction.

The aim of this original position is to do away with prejudices or any other form of personal issues that pervert justice; it introduces neutrality, allowing people to pass judgment as if they were passing it to themselves. Simply put, the original position calls for people to pass the kind of decisions that they would wish to get if they were in the position of the one facing justice.

Naturally, people want the best things for themselves; therefore, they would come up with structures that are best for themselves and because they do not know where they would be in future, the overall judgment would be best for them and fair to everyone else. ² Veil of ignorance is the situation whereby, people ignore or assume theirs status in society and make judgments as if they were equal to everybody else.

The Principle of Equal Liberty states that, each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. ¹ This is a classless principle calling for justice equality promoting mutual understanding; nevertheless, taken the way it is, this principle would confuse people on some issues and this is why Rawls compliments it with his second principle; the Difference Principle.

The Difference Principle states that, social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that; they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society, and offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. ¹

Rawls divides this second principle into two parts. The first part pushes for distribution of, economic and social disparities in a way that, they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society. ¹ This first part addresses the problems presented by the egalitarian nature of the first principle.

In this case, some people in society would enjoy some social status; however, this difference in class would be for the benefit of the less fortunate in the society. For instance, talented would be allowed to realize and practice their talents, which of course would give them some class in society.

Nevertheless, these talents should not be for personal gain but for the benefit of the less fortunate in the society. The second part of the Difference Principle states that, economic and social disparities should be distributed in a way that, offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. ¹

These disparities would exist under given considerations only if they benefit largely the least disadvantaged people in society. For instance, paying a manager millions of dollars a year would be allowed if these millions were to benefit the least disadvantaged in society.

Disparities are not the problem; the problem lies in the outcome of the disparities and if they are for personal gains then they are not allowed. Rawls puts forward two conditions; one, these disparities would be allowed if their outcome have direct or indirect positive effects in empowering the least advantaged in society; two, as long as the procedure of accessing high posts in society is free and fair, void of irrelevant criteria and discrimination, then it is all right. ²

Rawls theory is persuasive. Since time immemorial, justice ahs been littered with personal issues and prejudices making it unfair. For instance, those administering justice may do it harshly because after all, they are not subject to it. Considering Rawls principles, they advocate for equity and this is laudable.

Majority of people in society today are least disadvantaged with few individuals enjoying most of economic and social advantages. If only people would do unto others the way they would expect to be done, then the world would be a better place to live in. unfortunately, the real situation is far from this with delayed or twisted justice taking precedence over fair or Rawls justice.

Considering the first principle, people would be equal and passing justice from the original position would allow fair justice for all. The first bit of the second principle concerns itself with improving the livelihood of the least disadvantaged in society and this is praiseworthy.

The least disadvantaged people in the society have suffered all forms of injustices and this principle would act in the best interest of this group of poor individuals. The second bit of the second principle calls for equal opportunities in accessing offices and other life opportunities. For many years, people have been hired on basis of who knows whom in a given institution; this is unfair and Rawls principles would restore some fairness in such situations.

Conclusion

By referring to the original position, Rawls intends to eliminate any form of bias that might stain justice administration. This original position would allow equitability in justice administration and since justice administrators make decision from behind a veil of ignorance, which covers personal issues or status, then justice made would be fair to everyone.

From the original position acting from behind a veil of ignorance, people would make judgments and decisions that are fair to everyone because these decision makers do not know where they would belong in future; therefore, they would pass judgments that are best for themselves thus making the judgments fair to everyone. ²

Rawls principles are persuasive for they would restore equitability in justice administration; promote the least advantaged and allow equal chances to accessing life opportunities like holding offices. Majority of people in society are disadvantaged and logically, they form the greatest number of justice consumers; therefore improving their livelihood would be tantamount to boosting happiness in the whole society.

Reference List

1. Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1971.
2. Perry J, Bratman M, & Fisher M. Introduction to Philosophy: Classical And Contemporary Readings. New York; Oxford University Press; 2006.

Every person faces the philosophical question of how to live in a right way. Using the method of dialectical disputes, using the example of Platos dialogue Euthyphro, Socrates tried to give people the necessary knowledge. The peculiarity of his method was that he did not identify himself as the primary source of knowledge. In the process of education, he played the role of a guide to the right thoughts. However, not all of the philosophers contemporaries supported his point of view. Because of the belief that Socrates questions the deities and their laws, the philosopher was strongly condemned.

Platos dialogue Euthyphro is outwardly devoted to arguments about whether it is pious to prosecute ones father. The philosopher Euthyphro started this matter because his father ordered to tie up the murderer of his slave, a free citizen, and throw him into a pit, where he died. Socrates, feigning humiliation, asked Euthyphro to explain to him the line between piety and impiety. At first, everything seems primitive to Euthyphro, and he replies that piety is to prosecute any criminal, impiety is not to prosecute (Plato, 2019). As an example, he cites a plot from the life of the gods and drives himself into a trap.

Socrates led his interlocutor into a dead-end, reasoning like a perplexed simpleton. He would ask the questions, And the quarrels of the gods, when they occur, are of a like nature? What is this disagreement about? (Plato, 2019). After all, if the disagreement were about more or less, it would be resolved through calculation. As among humans, the disagreement between the gods is related to the line between the just and the unjust, the beautiful and the ugly, the good and the evil. At the same time, they disagree and start a war among themselves. If this is possible among the gods, then the same thing can be both God-loving and God-hating, and therefore both pious and impious.

With the help of this method, Socrates helped people to realize many things themselves and gain specific knowledge and use the activity of philosophy as something that helps to come to a rational way of living. Its essence was that at first, by leading and clarifying questions, the interlocutor was led to a contradiction from the point of view expressed by him, and then a joint search for the truth began. For Socrates, the truth did not arise and was not in the head of an individual in a ready-made form but was born in the process of dialogue by interlocutors who jointly seek the truth.

Socrates philosophy concerns individuals, whom he understood as moral beings who know themselves. The essence of a person is concentrated in the soul because it is what the body serves. The souls value consists of knowledge, and virtue is necessary for the souls growth (Ranjithkumar, 2017). It is the knowledge of what is good and evil that makes a person virtuous. Therefore, Socrates sought to find and accurately define the basic concepts of morality to find out their essence.

Such a method of interviewing is called Socratic inquiry or midwifery. The philosopher, in this way, only helped to acquire the knowledge but was not the source of it (Clark, 2018). Since the answer is a positive statement, the person who answered Socrates questions was considered knowledgeable. The usual methods of dialogue in Socrates, which can be seen in the Euthyphro: refutation by leading to a contradiction and feigning ignorance, avoiding direct answers. Thus, Socrates, speaking the truth about his ignorance, wanted to point out the insignificance of human knowledge compared to divine wisdom. Without concealing his ignorance, the philosopher wanted to bring his interlocutors to the same state.

Euthyphro thought that the righteous and pious is that part of the just that relates to the deities service or the care of the gods. What concerns the care of people will be the rest of what is just. According to the young man, the gods sometimes disagree on issues of justice. Some things are loved by some gods and hated by others. By this definition, these things will be godly and ungodly, which makes no sense. Socrates says that things are not pious because the gods look at them in a certain way. Instead, they like pious actions, such as helping a stranger in need, because such actions have a particular inner property, the property of being pious.

A show of force is punishable when humility to the inevitable is laudable. Because of this, Socrates is accused and will be punished since the philosopher decided to overthrow the foundations. The man will then receive approval because he will accept the inevitable with respect, at least in one way coming to agree with the majoritys opinion. Thus, given the logical contradiction and moral implications of this dialogue regarding the nature of the gods and their actions, it can be concluded that the human mind may be sufficient to live a moral life. The reason for this is the difference in the vision of the piety of gods and people. Therefore, to live a better life, a person must understand what is good and what is wrong.

References

Clark, J. C. (2018). Socratic inquiry and the WhatisF? question. European Journal of Philosophy, 26(4), 1324-1342.

Plato. (2019). Euthyphro. Good Press.

Ranjithkumar, A. (2019). Platos Notion of Justice in Understanding Order and Stability in Stratified Societies: a Study of Indias Experience. International Journal of Political Science and Development, 5(4), 45-49.