Category: Justice

In the dialogue of thinkers, there is an ordinary situation of an insistent proposal to continue the pastime unfolds. However, behind a completely neutral dialogue hides a vivid metaphor of how society shapes justice. Polemarchus tells Socrates that he will not let him into the city until he overcomes the interlocutor. To oppose this, the philosopher offers a discussion to convince the opponents of the need for a passage for himself, receiving in response a symbolic phrase from the Polemarchus who says, How can you convince those who will not listen? In this episode, the idea is well traced that sometimes society deliberately ignores the alternative of reasonable discourse, persuading a person to directly influence and resolve the situation. The phrase of the Polemarchus, And cannot you see how many of us are here? makes it clear that society, i.e., most people, will always dictate their will and their rules to one single person. These concepts correlate well with the ideas described in the Republic.

The fact that one of the interlocutors, Cephalus, is highly concerned with sacrifices speaks of him as a person associated with tradition. This is an inspiring view and metaphor for the idea of tradition, of which sacrifices were a part in ancient religious cults. Moreover, Cephalus personifies the image of older people in general, criticizing other people of their age, always grieving about their youth, but recognizing the importance and status of their age. Several concepts will be described further in the work that indicates that Plato supports traditional development, albeit peculiarly. The philosopher believes that tradition should be a moral beacon of young people instead of the epic and myth that distorts the moral values worn by their actors to increase public interest. Such actions, from the position of Plato, fill traditional images with extreme viciousness and rudeness.

Returning to the person of Polemarchus, imposing his will on Socrates, one can judge from this case and his other words that he is predisposed to an authoritarian attitude towards justice and desire. This demonstrates the desire of most people to impose their will on others, consciously or not. After all, keeping everything under your control, as seen in the example of Polemarchus, is a calming and satisfying aspiration. Further, he considers the definition of justice to be the concept of doing good to friends and harm to enemies. I cannot agree with this view of justice because such a view is based on the tribal and clan relations of the past, and in the course of the development of several institutions, problems of this kind of approach became visible. The main issue is peoples bias towards justice, starting from the notions of friend or foe. Such a view deprives the meaning of the word justice.

Thrasymachuss definition of the right of the strong for justice is also erroneous due to bias. The definition of the poet Simonides is that justice is giving to each what is owed. This speaks of a fair attitude to the justice process, where the acts themselves are considered and not the persons attitude to someone. As can be seen in the same discourse of men about justice, its general concept is impossible due to the different views of each person on the very essence of justice. The closest to me definition is the position of Simonides due to its treatment of justice in accordance with a persons abilities.

It is worth considering the myth of Plato about the ring of Giga, which makes a person invisible. Through the rings history, Plato examines whether a person can be just independently when one does not need to be afraid of punishment for committing injustice. In the myth, it is said that Gig, thanks to the ability to become invisible, seduced the queen, and with her help, killed the king, eventually becoming the ruler of Lydia. This myth is a clear demonstration and analogy of the idea of changing the moral qualities of a person in a hypothetical situation of the absence of consequences and punishment for committed actions.

The existence of the justice system, which the entire society is based on, has always been a hot-button issue for philosophers. Some (Locke, for example) argued that justice has an intrinsic value and, therefore, is a basic principle of the universes existence. Others, like Hobbes, claim that justice is the concept that was created and is defined by people and, therefore, cannot exist outside of human society. Although both viewpoints seem very legitimate, Hobbess idea that the state of nature is the state of war and, therefore, all people are free to pursue their desires, is more credible, seeing how in nature, the concept of equilibrium is a more appropriate way of describing the balance of the right and wrong than the idea of justice is.

Seeing justice as a concept that stretches well beyond the human culture and expands into the realm of nature, Locke, basically, notes the key imperfections of the given system as the execution of the only-the-strong-survive principle. Moreover, Locke notices that justice as the weapon of those beholding power may be turned against the people whom this system is called to protect: The great ones are rewarded with laurels and triumphs, because they are too big for the weak hands of justice in this world (Second Treatise p. 342). Therefore, Locke makes it obvious that people have an intrinsic sense of justice and, thus, are limited in the choice of their actions by the liberty principles that they have created.

When it comes to analyzing the legitimacy of Lockes viewpoint, one must mention that the philosopher addresses a number of issues that are topical even nowadays. For instance, the corruption and abuse of power, which can be observed at present in a number of states on various levels, is still topical and widely discussed in media. The given phenomenon, according to Locke, is one of the many flaws of the existing justice system.

In addition, Locke also makes a very powerful statement by saying that, God, Who, according to Christianity, is the only source of true power, is the creator of the universe; hence, the universe must be powered by His principles of justice, which are the only legitimate ones among all those existing. Seeing justice as the only possible way of running the state and peoples lives, Locke, therefore, defies justice system its flexibility, yet makes it obvious that the law of nature is the only possible form of law and that the necessity to protect oneself and others must remain every citizens top priority. As the philosopher argues, people will always bend and shape legal system the way in which it will be beneficial to them, which is impossible to carry out once the legal system is based on the law of nature:

Though the law of nature is plain and intelligible to all rational creatures; yet men being biassed by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases. (Second Treatise p. 66)

With all due regard to Lockes contribution to the evolution of philosophy, one must point at several dents in the aforementioned conclusions. For instance, with God as its Creator, justice cannot possibly have any flaws or weaknesses, which Locke himself disproves by noticing a range of issues that are wrong with justice in contemporary society.

Hobbes, in his turn, offers an entirely different set of principles, in accordance with which justice system must be reconstructed. As Hobbes explains, justice is the concept created by people and for people  a concept that cannot possibly exist outside the human world. People make laws, and they are entitled to do so for the sake of keeping the state in peace. In Hobbess concept of justice, no one must be allowed to judge others actions; everyone is their own judge. According to Hobbes, nothing can be unjust once taken outside the context of morality: The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice (Leviathan Chapter XIII).

At first, the very thought that the institution of justice cannot exist on its own may seem quite disturbing; on second thought, though, one will be able to see that justice is, in fact, the product of civilization. Comparing the phenomenon of injustice to what scholars call absurdity, Hobbes, as a sensualist, makes it clear that neither of the notions can be observed as a self-sufficient concept: For as it is there called an absurdity to contradict what one maintained in the beginning; so in the world, it is called injustice, and injury voluntarily to undo that which from the beginning he had voluntarily done (Leviathan Chapter XIV).

As solid as Hobbess argument might seem, it also has its problems. For example, Hobbes clearly ignores the obvious difference between a man and an animal, which Locke makes a very strong emphasis on by claiming that people are mostly guided by a natural need to stay alive. The philosophers intent to draw a very distinct line between the laws of nature and the laws created by people could be related to his support for and approval of monarchy; however, Hobbes denies the fact that his interpretation of justice is somehow connected to his political views: in response to the suggestion that justice is a word without substance, Hobbes claims that in that case, there be also that maintain that there are no grounds, nor principles of reason, to sustain those essential rights which make sovereignty absolute. For if there were, they would have been found out in some place or other (Leviathan Chapter XXX).

Despite the doubtless the fact that Locke must be given credit for his theory regarding justice as an integral part of nature and people being primarily driven by appetites, it seems that Hobbess idea of justice as a concept created by people and for people seems more plausible. Indeed, when getting into detail about justice and the way it works, one must admit that, for justice to exist, a system of reasonable laws and appropriate penalties for breaking these laws must be introduced. Hence, the parties involved must be aware of what they are right or wrong about, whereas in nature, these are instincts that creatures are guided by, not reasoning. Without a moral compass to rely on, one will not be able to conjure an efficient justice system; thus, the entire idea of justice becomes pointless.

It should be mentioned, though, that Lockes idea of justice as the phenomenon that exists outside human ethics can be interpreted as an attempt to define, analyze and interpret the laws of nature that keep the natural environment in balance. In other words, Locke means to envision the fragile balance, in which the elements of nature exist, as a manifestation of the so-called natural justice. In that sense, the idea of nature and its creatures hinging on some kind of intrinsic justice is rather plausible. Justice, in its most direct, eye-for-an-eye meaning, can, in fact, be observed in nature. The basic concept of a food chain can be used to prove the given viewpoint; for instance, herbivores fall prey to small carnivores, which, in their turn, are consumed by larger carnivores.

Nevertheless, the given examples can hardly be seen as a manifestation of natural justice  at least, not as justice system introduced in most of the present-day states and in the human civilization in general. Drawing the line between the justice represented in the wildlife and the justice system created by people, one must mention that in the latter case, the key principles listed in-laws and regulations, as well as the assessments of particular cases of injustice, are carried out consciously and with the purpose of making the criminals recognize their mistakes. Nature, instead, dictates its own concept of justice, which is much more uncompromising than the one designed by the human race.

While Hobbess idea of justice is perfectly applicable to the environment of human society, it can hardly work in the realm of nature. Therefore, it can be assumed that Lockes point is more feasible  at least, in the XXI century society. It should be noted, though, that, when replaced with the idea of equilibrium, the concept of justice seems applicable to the world of wilderness. Considerably more cruel and primitive than the elaborate justice system created by people, the equilibrium of the elements of nature can be seen as an equivalent of human justice. In that sense, Lockes interpretation of justice as the law of nature that exists in all its domains is just as accurate as Hobbess more pragmatic point of view.

Works Cited

Hobbes, Thomas. The Leviathan. 1660. Web.

Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. 1773. Web.

Introduction

Justice is a multifaceted issue that countless philosophers pondered, providing their perspectives on what can be considered just and what should be viewed as unjust. Previously, two perspectives of the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes have been reviewed. It was determined that while Hobbes perceives any action or regulation of the government as just, Rousseaus opinion is, on the contrary, based on the public interest and collective good. However, the matter of justice must be perceived as an amalgamation of the two points.

Discussion

When it comes to the comparison, there is only one similarity between the two lenses. Both philosophers emphasize the role of a sovereign and other authorities for justice in the nations. However, there is one immense difference between the lenses of the two. While Rousseau accentuates that the goal of justice is to promote and serve the public good, which defines justice, Hobbes believes that this is simply an artificial matter and that such actions should be delegated solely and voluntarily to the sovereign (Mirakhor & Askari, 2019). Such a research process of emphasizing the most beneficial and rational elements of the lenses can provide advantages. Through such lenses, completely opposing perspectives have been found, which in nature, are valid. The benefits of further research are finding new perspectives on the matter while widening and narrowing the subject.

Conclusion

Hence, the issue of justice must be seen as a combination of the two ideas of the two philosophers. The only similarity of the lenses is their emphasis on the role of the government. However, Hobbes believed that the acts of the sovereign should be accepted when they are concerned with the welfare of the country, much as Rousseau believed that the public good and the collective voice should be taken into consideration. The emphasis on the most advantageous and logical aspects of the lens during the research process can have several benefits of such an approach.

Reference

Mirakhor, A. & Askari, H. (2019). Conceptions of justice from earliest history to Islam. Palgrave Macmillan.

The problem of justice arose at the times when courts appeared. This problem is not so new; it was the consideration of many people hundreds of years ago. The possibility of justice for people without any power and without any financial support is the one of the main items which worry people in modern world. Lots of people face this problem and very often they cannot decide this problem in their favor. Different people have different understandings of justice especially if they are on different sides of item called law. Some people are eager to fight till the end to prove their case, even if they have no any law power and support. There are people who believe in law and justice and there are people who deny it.

A good example of persistence in looking for justice and the denying this justice is the novel The Anarchist: His Dog by Susan Glaspell. Stubby, the main character wanted a dog but he could not allow it himself as he was feeding all his family and could not find money to pay dog tax.

Stubbys father explains his son that the dog is very expensive and no one cares that they do not have enough money to pay dog tax. He says that there is no justice in reference to poor people in the government, as doing the best you could make no difference to government; hard-luck stories did not go when it comes to the laws of the land (Glaspell 2004-139).

Stubbys father insists that he is against the government. He does not believe in the law and order. The real bad anarchists shoot them that try to enforce the laws of the land (Glaspell 2004-142).

Lots of people do not believe in injustice. Most of them faced this problem and did not win the case. There are lots of examples when people who have no dramatic effect could not prove their case. The problem is universal. As it was already mentioned, people from different sides of law have different understanding of justice and unfortunately, people who have more power and support have more chances to win the court case.

The example of injustice in reference to poor people is presented in the newspaper article by Ian Fisher. The author represents the reader with the story of a woman who was raped by a guy who managed to escape from police. The relatives of the woman told that the police did not try hard to catch him. The man was the member of a landowning family, so the victims family was sure that he would be able to bribe the police. (Fisher 2002) People often do not believe in justice when influential people are involved in the case.

Some people believe injustice under any circumstances. Stubby in the novel by Susan Glaspell tries to do all he can to keep the dog. The fathers disbelief in law pushes him to prove the versa.

Stubby tries to convince the police to release him from dog tax as he has no money. I am an anarchist and do not believe in government or the law and the order. I would not be an anarchist if I could get the money. I am against government (Glaspell 2004-142), these words Stubby writes to police when he had lost any hope to keep the dog.

Actually, Stubby believed injustice, and by those words he wanted to persuade police to make an exception for him and release him from dog tax. The situation interests the newspapers. The story ends happily and the boy got what he wanted at the end.

The story is a good example of justice. The boy showed that there is justice, order and law in the world if one tries to do all he/she can, and if person believes in what he does and wants to achieve.

The examples of justice, when influential people are involved in the process and on the other side from law and poor people, also exist. But the number of such cases is not so numerous. When the case is led by principal person and he or she has nothing to be afraid of and for whom the justice is in the first place, such person will do all her best to maintain law and order in the case. Such people exist, they do not care about your of his influence or position in the society, such judges care only about justice and try to provide it in every case.

The example of a real judge who cares only about justice is David H. Souter. Linda Greenhouse wrote an article about him, David H. Souter: Justice unbound, in The New York Times. Linda described him as a very honest person who was bound by nothing except evidence. The only goal of this person was to be protected from privileges and powers of people who could try to use their influences on him. He was not afraid to appear in public as his consciousness was clear. During his entire career he did not provide any injustice decisions. He was unbound from any promises and obligations. (Greenhouse 2009)

The provided two ideas about justice are very different, I would even say opposite. It is impossible to convey to the first ones that justice exists as they know from their own experience that it is not true. People who had ever experienced injustice in their life will never agree that there is law and order in modern society. It is impossible to convey these peoples injustice. But some actions could be made, some ideas and solutions could be provided to prevent such situations where not justice and truth are dominant in courts but the influence and power of some people are dominant.

We searched for some ways out of the situation and have found some solutions to the problem. There are some actions that could be effective. The government of every country should provide the supervision on all courts. Some new department or committee could be organized, where people would not have any concernments in any case. The committee should be responsible for searching for any violations in the court procedure and punishing those who appeared to be guilty.

At least two people must be punished: those who influenced the court procedure and those who allowed influencing it. In other words, it should be the judge, who closed his eyes to some evidence which prevented to wrong verdict, and the accused, who wanted to escape the punishment by means of the influence and power of his or her friends or relatives.

In sum, it should be mentioned that the problem of justice is a very delicate and debate question that should be considered separately and independently in every case. People should believe in justice and try to reach it with any method. The goal justifies methods; this should be the main principle in searching for truth and justice.

Works Cited

Fisher, Ian. Seeing no justice, a rape victim chooses death. The New York Times. 2002.

Glaspell, Susan. Lifted Masks. Kessinger Publishing, 2004.

Greenhouse, Linda. David H. Souter: Justice unbound. The New York Times. 2009.

Introduction

The Letter to Ren An is a masterpiece detailing the issues that defined China in the early 90s BC. According to the letter, Si-ma Qian endured humiliation so that he can get the opportunity to finish his historical work. The author shared similar opinions with Ren An. The author also indicates that Ren An had faced comparable humiliations before. The author also received a letter from Ren An explaining why great men should always be cautious whenever dealing with other people. Great men should also embrace their skills and work hard in an attempt to support the advancement of other men in the world. This essay therefore uses the Biography of Li Ling and Weng Tian to explain why a person should be judged by the purity of his or her intentions.

People Should Be Judged by the Purity of Their Intentions

In his letter, Si-ma Qian argues that people should always devote themselves to moral actions and training. Such people should also engage in pure actions and focus on the best aspects of humanity. People should also be ready to help and have a sense of duty. As well, every action undertaken by man should be aimed at promoting the best name. During times of shame, people should be courageous and focus on their goals. These issues and principles therefore support the argument that one should be judged by the purity of his or her intentions. Such intentions should be honorable and inspirational.

Throughout the letter, the author expresses how people should focus on the best deeds in order to have better lives. People should have the best intentions and embrace the righteous. This practice will bring hope, empower societies, and make it easier for people to achieve their goals. The purity of ones intentions is something critical whenever undertaking a specific role. This is a higher principle that defines the lives of great men. A positive intention will deliver the greatest happiness to more people. Human beings who might not succeed while promoting the best intentions will definitely become heroes.

In this letter, Si-ma Qian gives a brief account of Li Lings intentions and accounts. The short biography of Li Ling shows significantly why a person should be judged by the purity of his intentions, and not whether he has succeeded. The letter explains how Li Lings infantry fought tirelessly in an attempt to achieve its intentions. The soldiers managed to fight with empty bows in order to achieve their goals. The ministers of Han were pleased by Li Lings ambitions and efforts. They even raised their cups and honored the emperor for his achievements. However, the issue of defeat redefined his life.

The author was forced to explain to the court how Li Ling was a great man. The writer was ready to forget his lowly position in the society and narrate to the court how the emperor had pure intentions. According to Si-ma Qian, Li Ling was a great man who shared his ideas with every officer. The leader was also ready to empower his troops. His troops remained loyal even in the face of predictable death. These actions and intentions had never been surpassed by the other generals. The author also describes with grief how Li Ling eventually fell into captivity. The emperors intention was to seek the best opportunity and be able to repay a debt to the Han.

The life of Ling shows how he eventually found himself in a hard position. The most outstanding thing from the letter is how the author honors this emperor. He believes strongly that Ling was always guided by the best intentions and wanted to achieve his ultimate goals. By so doing, Li Ling was able to achieve the intended goal. His intention was to destroy very many enemies. His attempts and achievements are still proclaimed in every corner of the globe.

It is also notable in the letter that Si-ma Qian wanted to proclaim these intentions to the court. Unfortunately, the author was unable to express his opinion. He was eager to speak of Lings achievements, positive intentions, and merits. The ultimate goal was to put an end to the unrealistic and unforgiving words presented by different court officials.

That being the case, Lings actions were guided by pure intentions. His ultimate goal was to destroy many enemies and repay every debt. The author found it impossible to support Lings intentions. Consequently, Si-ma was put into prison thus being unable to portray his loyalty. Some individuals and officials in the court even believed strongly that the authors intention was to deceive the ruler. These events forced Qian to submit to the officials. The letter shows clearly that the author eventually faced judgment. The story also explains clearly why individuals should always focus on the best actions and intentions. It does not matter if they emerge successful or not.

This argument can also be supported by the Biography of Meng Tian. According to Si-ma Qian, Meng Tian was a famous ruler for the Han Dynasty. As an emperor, Meng Tian is the one who pioneered the construction of the Great Wall of China. On one side, the emperor managed to open up direct roads and even hallowed out different mountains. Such actions were critical towards the success of the dynasty. However, the biographer strongly believes that the actions of Meng Tian are not justifiable. This happens to be the case because the rulers intentions were not pure or appropriate for the dynasty.

Meng Tian destroyed the major feudal states of China. As well, the ruler failed to restore the hearts of the people to order. The leadership of the emperor wounded many people in the dynasty without any form of healing. Although some historians might argue that Tian was a successful ruler, Si-ma Qian believes that he was not great at all. For instance, the famous general failed to use the opportune moment to address most of the pains affecting the people. The emperor was unable to support the needs of the old people in the society. He made it impossible for many Chinese orphans to survive.

Many people were unable to live in harmony thus affecting the greatness of his reign. Unfortunately, Weng Tian promoted unrealistic enterprises with the aim of widening his imperial ambitions. As well, the biographer indicates clearly that the ruler and his brother eventually faced the death penalty. This portrayal shows clearly that the success of a person should not be used to determine the purity of his actions or intentions.

Weng Tian might have been a great leader who constructed the marvelous wall of China. He also managed to conquer several states and widened his territorial ambitions. Although such ambitions are valid, the agreeable fact is that the leader was not a man of honor. The biographer shows that he had negative intentions thus making it impossible for him to safeguard the needs of his people. He failed to address the needs of orphans and widows. Many people languished in poverty during his reign. His impure intentions failed to support the welfare of the people.

Leaders can learn a lot from the story of Weng Tian. The emperor faced death because of his actions. He failed to promote the rights of the people. Instead, he focused on selfish goals thus threatening the welfare of the dynasty. Some historians have therefore argued that Tians intentions were not pure. He was not ready to empower his people and instead focused on unrealistic ambitions.

Conclusion

In his work Letter to Ren An, Si-ma Qian shows conclusively that human beings should be judged by the purity of their intentions and not whether they become successful. This argument explains why Si-ma Qians work has been read widely in many societies across the globe. This masterpiece shows how real emperors promoted the welfare of the greatest majority. Such leaders use sincere and pure intentions whenever executing their missions.

They consider the welfare of the people and support the needs of the poor. Such intentions should therefore be used to make the most appropriate judgments without considering whether the individuals have been successful or not. People should therefore embrace these rules in order to focus on the most appropriate actions. The ultimate goal is to empower more people and promote justice.

Bibliography

Knechtges, David. Key Words: Authorial Intent, and Interpretation: Sima Qians Letter to Ren An. CLEAR 30.1 (2008): 75-84.

Owen, Stephen. An Anthology of Chinese Literature: Beginnings to 1911. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997.

Tschang, Yinpo. Chaos in Heaven: On the Calendars of Pre-classical China. Sino-platonic Papers 141 (2004): 1-30.

People have always longed for justice but it is also noteworthy that humans see justice differently. Of course, there are universal moral values which are shared by the majority of people. These central moral values are revealed in Dantes Divine Comedy. At the same time, the idea of justice is considered in Dantes Inferno. It is possible to note that justice can be regarded as achievement of balance in the universe. The matter is balanced by the antimatter in the universe. Likewise, a bad action leads to bad consequences in the world of people. At least, people believe in this and strive for justice which means that rightful actions should be praised while wrongful actions should be punished.

Importantly, the punishment should be corresponding as a more serious punishment for a less serious misdeed will inevitably lead to misbalance, which is against the laws of the universe. In Dantes Inferno, those who sin or fail to live moral lives are punished accordingly in the circles of hell. It is possible to consider three sins and the way the sinners are punished to see Dantes idea of justice and the way it is similar to the contemporary concept of justice.

It is possible to start with a smaller sin (the fourth circle) which leads to a milder punishment. According to Dante, greed is a great which corrupts the soul of a human who thinks of his/her gaining rather than moral and intellectual development. The sinners have to rolld on weights by main forge of their breasts, / Then smote together, and each one forthwith / Rolld them back voluble, turning again (Dante 33). Therefore, those people were absorbed by the desire to gain more fortune and became really wealthy but immoral.

However, gold only corrupts the soul and becomes a heavy burden for a human. Hence, those greedy people physically feel the burden of the gold in their circle of hell. Notably, there are no specific names as there are far too many greedy people in the world. Dante is quite unable to single out a person as all are equal in their corrupted souls.

However, it is clear that the sinners are repentant as they are accusing each other of the heavy loads they have to lift. Notably, the punishment is adequate as those people can finally see what their life really was. They focused on their wealth and did not think of morality so it was time to make them feel the burden of their first life. Dante the Pilgrim is compassionate as he thinks it is typical of a person to want to live in certain conditions.

The next sin to be discussed is theft. Thieves were stealing other peoples property and even part of their life. At the same time, the theft corrupted the thieves souls as well and changed their identity. Therefore, Dante the Poet assigned a very specific punishment for these people in their eighth circle of hell. Thieves are transformed into different things and substances for the crimes they committed in their first life.

Vanni Fucci is one of the sinners suffering in this circle. He is turned into ashes and then resurrected to be transformed into ashes all over again. The thief is suffering greatly but he understands he had a sinful bestial life (Dante 106). Again, it is clear that Dante the Pilgrim feels pity for the thief, but he also sees certain justice after explanations of his master. The punishment is just and adequate as thieves had to feel degradation of their souls.

Finally, it is necessary to consider sin which is placed to the ninth circle of hell, treachery. Dante sees treachery as the most serious crime as it is a crime against people who trust and are betrayed. The sinners are encapsulated into ice and only their faces are free from ice.

One of the sinners is Count Ugolino who has to suffer in the icy capsule with no motion. He has eternity to mourn and think about his sins. Notably, the sinners are quite repentant as they weep but Ugolino also thinks that he was punished too harsh as his sons starved to death (Dante 141). Therefore, the count is punished twice, in his first life and in hell. Again, Dante the Pilgrim is compassionate and empathetic though he understands that the sins committed are very serious.

It is necessary to note that these three sins and chosen punishment as well as the attitude of Dante the Pilgrim towards these sinners reveal a broader message of the idea of justice and the entire Inferno. In the first place, Inferno is the place where justice reigns according to Christian beliefs. However, Dante the Pilgrim is quite doubtful about the justice as it is always manifested too late and people are so miserable in their circles of their own hell. Besides, some sins are often associated with overall corruption of the society or human nature. Thus, lots of people simply cannot resist some sins due to the human nature. At the same time, they are still punished.

For some, for instance, it is rather difficult to admit that eternal suffering of the soul can be a just punishment for a number of sins committed by the person living in the world. This viewpoint leads to the assumption that Inferno is not the place where justice reigns, but a place which shows that there is justice and there is balance in the universe.

Inferno is the place which can make the present world much better and this is the broader message Dantes circles of hell convey. The poet manages to unveil one of the most important secrets of the universe which can help people think of their moral behavior and their spiritual development.

In conclusion, it is necessary to note that Dantes Inferno has provided numerous lessons to people. It makes people think of their own lives and their moral values. Clearly, modern people do not often think about the hell and eternal suffering, but Dantes Inferno makes people see the sins in the allegorical form which is very descriptive. Inhabitants of the hell represent the wrongs of the society and corrupted souls which make the world worse.

Modern college students should look through this part of Dantes Divine Comedy from time to time to be able to make adequate choices. It is necessary to remember that even if an individual thinks that certain crime is possible to commit, there will be adequate punishment. This may prevent many people from doing something wrong. Moreover, students can see that Dante describes sins which are still regarded as wrongful actions. Hence, it becomes clear that there are universal moral values which should be cherished.

Works Cited

Dante, Alighieri. The Divine Comedy: Inferno, Purgatory, Paradise. Trans. H.F. Cary. New York, NY: Interactive Media, 2013. Print.

Introduction

Inequality and adherence to outdated cultural traditions are two of the main sources behind the tragedies that were seen in the case of Oedipus Rex and Antigone. For instance, in the case of Oedipus Rex, the origin behind the tragedy can be traced to the belief of King Laius in the words of an oracle. The mere fact that he was willing to believe in something that might come true on the basis that an oracle stated shows that the problem is a mistaken belief in a cultural tradition that is far from what can be stated as being logical.

The same can be seen in the case of Antigone, wherein the female protagonist (i.e., Antigone) places religious belief over the laws established by the state. On the other end of the spectrum, the issue of Antigone can also be traced to the problem of inequality in Greek society at the time. The opinions of Antigone when it came to the burial of Polynices were surreptitiously ignored due to the fact that she was a woman. In fact, her treatment at the hands of Creon and Haemon shows that she is considered as an item to be owned and disposed of rather than an actual person who has rights.

Leadership in the Greek Stories

The first theme in the Greek stories is the absolute nature of the authority of leaders and how they are apparently not subject to the same restraints as their followers. In the story, we see Oedipus threaten a Shepard to get information and inform that if he is not given what he wants, there will be torture and execution (Diski 49). In Antigone, we see Creon imprisoning Antigone in a tomb for burying a body. This shows the concept of absolute authority in action wherein the leaders status grants them the capacity to issue orders which normally sound criminal yet are followed anyway.

The second theme of leadership in the case of the Greek stories is based on leadership being attained through great deeds. For example, in Oedipus Rex, we see Oedipus solving the riddle of the Sphinx and then being subsequently given the leadership of a city (Mahony 290). This eschews any type of actual governing ability and focuses on the fact that he accomplished a great deed for the city (Kousoulis 155). On the other hand, in present-day society, great deeds are interchangeable with the concept of popularity.

Election into leadership positions is now based on how popular you are, resulting in a majority vote within the election process. While leaders at present are required to show the capacity to actually lead, it does show that leadership, as we know it is basically a popularity contest. In line with this train of thought is the leadership of Adolf Hitler, who became a leader of the Nazi party due to his popularity. His leadership is well known in history as the direct cause of millions of deaths and the genocide of the Jewish population. This shows that being just popular does not make anyone a good leader.

Justice and Inequality

From Oedipus Rex to Antigone, we see examples of social injustice and inequality at play based on the plight of Antigone and the Shepard. Antigone suffers by virtue of being a woman while the Shepard suffers by virtue of being part of the common working class. Their rights are not considered to be equal to the commands of their rulers, resulting in absolute orders being meted out into unjust acts (Kovacs 56). This shows that Greek society is basically hierarchical, wherein women and ordinary workers are not thought of like the ones having the same social rights or even the capacity to experience proper justice. In fact, it is implied throughout the stories that the concept of justice is one that is based on the intercession and will of the Gods rather than being in the hands of humans. This creates the notion that for ordinary people, justice is something they have to pray for and not something that is given to them by virtue of their inalienable human rights (Nassaar 148).

The same themes occur today, as seen in the case or rampant inequality and laws that favor the rich. The leaders in both Oedipus and Antigone show themselves as owners of absolute power and worry very little about the consequences of their actions; the same can be said about those in power today (Miller 245). Wealth, prestige and popularity are the vestiges of power in societies around the world at the present and they are only accessible to a small percentage of the population. There is little in the way of a significant trickle down effect resulting in the rich getting even richer while the poor get much poorer. This, partly due to the way in which the current system has been constructed, results in some correlation to the system seen in the Greek stories which limit the capacity of the common men and women from being able to exert their rights.

Injustice Today

Injustice today is similar to what can be found in the Greek stories based on the continued isolation of power and opportunities towards the rich. Simply put, we all seem to have been placed in a similar position as the Shepard where we apparently have no choice but to follow what is being dictated. The rich today can be described as people with the same type of absolute power that Oedipus depicted in the story due to the fact that they are the ones who create laws, dictate the progress of the current system and are apparently immune to the same application of justice unlike the common human being. Evidence of this can be seen in multiple cases where a rich person is arrested for a crime yet subject to what can be considered as the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. On the contrary, an ordinary person committing the same kind of crime may be punished harshly (for example, illegal drug possession).

Conclusion

After going over everything that has been presented in this paper, it can be seen that ancient literature helps to showcase problems that plagued society in the past. We can see whether society as we know it has grown or changed or if we are merely repeating the same mistakes that our ancestors made so long ago. Based on present day events and the way they resemble times of Antigone and Oedipus Rex, the outcome is rather unfortunate; past mistakes have apparently been repeated in the present. Through this paper, a window into the past has shown that we continue to repeat the same mistakes over and over again; hopefully, as people understand more about past and present events, similar instances can be prevented from happening in the future.

Works Cited

Diski, Jenny. A Great Fall. New Statesman 141.5125 (2012): 48-55. Print

Kousoulis, Antonis A. The Plague Of Thebes, A Historical Epidemic In Sophocles Oedipus Rex. Emerging Infectious Diseases 18.1 (2012): 153-157. Print

Kovacs, David. The End Of Sophocles Oedipus Tyrannus: The Sceptical Case Restated. Journal Of Hellenic Studies 134 (2014): 56-65. Print

Mahony, Patrick. The Oedipus Rex Of Sophocles And Psychoanalysis. International Journal Of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies 7.4 (2010): 290-306.

Miller, Patrick Lee. Oedipus Rex Revisited. Modern Psychoanalysis 31.2 (2006): 229- 250. Print

Nassaar, Christopher S. Tampering With The Future: Apollos Prophecy In Sophocless Oedipus The King. Anq: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes and Reviews 26.3 (2013): 147-149. Print

The question of justice or lack of it arises often in any societal set-up because people are inclined to pursuing malicious agendas for personal gains. This scenario leads to unfairness and adversity, but the response to such occurrences depends solely on the person who has been offended or denied justice. In Apology, Socrates is accused of different issues including corrupting the youth of Athens. He sits before a jury and after presenting his defense, a guilty verdict is made and he is sentenced to death by poisoning.

In Euripides, Jason decides to leave Medea, his wife, for another woman, despite the two of them having undergone great suffering. Medea has sacrificed a lot for Jason and thus when he decides to leave her for Glauce, she is consumed by anger, which inspires her revenge mission. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast how Medea and Socrates respond to injustice or unfair accusations.

Socrates vs. Medea

Both Apology and Euripides share an overarching normative question on how people choose to respond differently to the question of injustice. Socrates is unfairly accused of corrupting the youth of Athens among other trumped-up charges. He chooses to defend himself against such charges by facing the justice system of the day. He asserts, It is right for me, gentlemen, to defend myself first against the first lying accusations made against me and my first accusers, and then against the later accusations and the later accusers (Apology 18b).

On the other hand, in Euripides, the play opens with Medea complaining about the injustice she has suffered at the hands of Jason, her husband. She says, I wanted to come here, to speak to earth and heaven, to tell them about the wrongs inflicted on my mistress& Stopped crying? I envy your ignorance. Her suffering has only just begun  shes not even half way through it (Medea 70). Here are two cases defined by injustice and unfairness, but the offended parties choose to respond differently.

On the one hand, Socrates decides to face his accusers and defend himself within the set legal system. On the other hand, Medea resorts to crying and lamenting about Jasons decision to leave her and her children for another woman. These initial reactions and approaches to adversity are important because they lay the foundation of how the rest of the story unfolds.

The overarching normative issue in these two cases is the question of injustice and unfairness. Both Socrates and Medeas issues converge at adversity and they have to decide how to react under such circumstances. However, their responses diverge primarily due to their philosophical grounding. The following section discusses how Medea and Socrates respond or react to adversity by comparing and contrasting the actions of the two characters.

In the case of Socrates, he finds himself in a complicated situation where he is being accused of surreal charges of corrupting the Athenian youth and questioning norms. Therefore, from the onset of the trial, it is clear that in a just system, he will win the case. However, the system is unjust and the jurors are determined to convict Socrates. In the opening parts of the speech he notes,

I must surely defend myself and attempt to uproot from your minds in so short a time the slander that has resided there so long. I wish this may happen, if it is in any way better for you and me and that my defense may be successful, but I think this is very difficult and I am fully aware of how difficult it is. Even so, let the matter proceed as the god may wish, but I must obey the law and make my defense (Apology 19a).

In other words, Socrates is aware that he may not win this case, but he is prepared to face the law of the land, as currently constituted, as part of being a responsible citizen. Ultimately, Socrates is convicted and the verdict is given that he should die by poisoning. At this point, it would be expected of him to challenge that decision and appeal to a higher court or call in witnesses to testify on his behalf. However, he chooses to respect the process of judgment and in pursuit of the truth, the best he can do is to present his case as honestly as he can. He posits, It is not the purpose of a jurymans office to give justice as a favor to whoever seems good to him, but to judge according to law, and this he has sworn to do (Apology 35c).

At one point, he even hints that he could have used emotional manipulation to influence the outcome of his case, but he chooses to do the right thing. In other words, by abiding by the jurys verdict, Socrates shows that he is willing to respect the justice system despite its many shortcomings.

On her part, Medea chooses a different direction in dealing with her adversity. Her lamentations and self-pity about the injustices that Jason has meted on her quickly turn into hatred, which stirs vengeance as a way of attaining justice. According to her, the only way out of her predicament is killing Jasons, newfound love. Even after Aegeus, the King of Athens offers her a sanctuary in his palace, she is too blinded with a vengeance that she goes ahead with her plan to make Jason suffer by killing their children and Glauce.

After succeeding in executing her wicked plans, she rejoices in the death of her victims. To the messenger who reports the death of Glauce and her father, she says, Tell me of their deaths. If you report they died in pain, youll double my rejoicing (Medea 1340). In the process of avenging her injustices, she not only destroys Jason but also herself. Therefore, the quest for justice takes different routes with Medea deciding to achieve it by her means and Socrates choosing to respect the flawed Athenian laws as a responsible citizen.

Conclusion

An Apology and Euripides, two people are facing a similar normative problem of injustice, but they choose to respond differently. Socrates respects the rule of law and subjects himself to the justice system even though he knows he cannot win against a biased jury that is out to have him convicted and sentenced to death even if it means trumping up charges against an innocent man. He chooses to stand by his principles in the face of adversity even when he can manipulate the case emotionally to his favor. On the other hand, Medea decides to respond to adversity and injustice through vengeance. She kills her children, Glauce, and Creon, which means she self-destructs in the process.

The abuse of power is a prevalent phenomenon in diverse societies and systems of governance as evident by the practice of judges in the context of law and the ability of a president to pardon criminals.

Judges operate within a legal structure, which constrains their roles in the administration of retributive justice and curtails their authority regarding tasks such as pardoning of offenders or discarding the execution of penalties despite the fact that they are the guardians of the law.

On the other hand, the constitution bestows excellent power to the executive, as a branch of the legislature, in critical matters of perceived justice and justifiable violence. The functions of the judicial department conflict with the powers of the executive because of the executives tendency to override retributive justice and sustain the governmental decree of justice (Bull 2012, p.173).

The existence of the judicial department as an element of the state has created a loophole that allows entities within the government that violate laws and avoid the recommended penalties. For example, although law enforcement agencies have been on the limelight on numerous occasions due to acts of violence against civilians, juries often absolve the agencies of any wrongdoing.

The most common justification for the use of violence by the police against citizens concerns the discretion to use force in situations whereby the police perceive violent intervention as crucial to the undertaking of their duties. The willingness of juries to condone violence highlights ideologies and structures of the power of the state that seek accountability of civilians but absolves elements of the government from any responsibility.

The state exists as a monopoly and legitimizes violence within its various elements and branches because the power of the country entails controlling various means of violence. State agents can use violence without much condemnation by the judiciary with state officers acting as an extension of the expression of the state power and violence.

Considering that government officers act in the capacity of the state, they can advance their personal interests and gains by disregarding the law and promoting violence in the pretext of doing their job and acting in the line of duty.

The constitution defines legal exceptions for the state in matters such as protecting the sovereignty through just war or internal wars, which allow political leaders and influential individuals to undertake unpopular actions and defy international law.

For example, the invasion of Iraq by the United States defied the UN Security Council resolutions and led to widespread abuse of human rights and a significantly high number of civilian casualties (Burke 2007, p.10).

When viewed in the realm of strategies for national security, a Congressional vote for the invasion of Iraq possessed a legal legitimacy despite the fact that all the powers of the government should exist within the context of the law.

Legal structures, which grant executive powers and exceptions, promote violence against civilians by influential individuals who enjoy exemptions as provide by the constitution. All actions by the state or an individual should be subject to their consequences and cause of harm to other parties because the state does not exist in a vacuum but is a collection of individuals bestowed with power in various capacities.

The executive power allows the state to act as the complainant, prosecutor and judge so that influential individuals acting in the capacity of the country can promote impunity, violence and injustice without having to worry about being accountable for their actions.

The influence of the state over legal interpretations coerces courts to act in favour of the country and is a central aspect in the foundation and thriving of states on violence. The alignment of legal interpretations in favour of state violence provides room for the application of authoritarian violence and the sustenance of hermeneutic jurisdiction (Koskenniemi 1990, p.17).

The acceptance of violence by those in power emanates from the fact that judges will support violence by the state and encourage the subjection of civilians to state violence. The power of the state allows the prevalence of selective justice and submissiveness of civilians to avoid the consequences of conflicting with state interests.

Individuals within the judicial department promote violence through their assertion of laws and destructions of others using the courts authority, which gives superiority to judges interpretation of the constitution (Selassie 1936, p.1). The acceptance of a judges interpretation, even when wrong, allows collaboration between the executive and the judiciary in absolving the wrongdoings of those in power.

Resistance by civilians against inappropriate legal interpretations is likely to encounter violent of administration, which is beyond the reproach of the court law. An analysis of state violence illustrates that the authority of judges cannot circumscribe the undertakings of the wielders of state violence because the constitutional structure seeks to limit the intrinsic power of the judicial department.

The need by influential individuals to retain authority overrides the importance of protecting the constitutional rights of victims of violence and introduces aspects of deference of justice by the state or administrators so that the influential people do not take responsibility.

Reference List

Bull, H 2012, The Anarchical Society: a Study of Order in World Politics, Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke.

Burke, A 2007, Beyond security, ethics and violence war against the other, Routledge: London.

Koskenniemi, M 1990, The Politics of International Law, European Journal of International Law, vol. 1, no. 1, pp 4-32.

Selassie, H 1936, Haile Selassie, Appeal to the League of Nations, June 1936. Mount Holyoke. Web.