I've been taking an intro to philosophy course, so I admittedly I'm a complete knoob when it comes this stuff. However, we've been learning about Socrates's quest for defining what justice is. For Socrates, the truth was out there but it is something that could not be found. With that said, it is better to know that you do not know rather than to be ignorant that you do not know.
In the Republic, Plato tries to define what justice is and how a just society should operate. However, to me, his society and so called justice system sucks.
Thus, we come to Thrasymachus's argument that:
Justice is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger.
Granted Socrates refutes this definition, Thrasymachus still raises an interesting point. There is no such thing as universal justice, and so we cannot define it.
My question to you guys is, is there such thing as a universal justice that we can define? If so, what is it?
Posted in
Fun,
Idea,
philosophical,
Political,
Reflection,
Religion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
omygawd. i had no idea you guys were so hip and bloggin.
- Xu
"knoob" haha now I know how you and my brother got along well :p
I took philos and read the republic senior year in high school so I know it can get really complicated but wouldn't we (meaning Christians) characterize God's will/rule as universal justice?
(sorry I had to delete my previous comment so that I could click the email follow up comment choice)
haha so actually my friend, michael choe wrote this one :), and choe, i actually wrote up half of a long-response and gave up cuz the other half just didn't seem worth it haha
but yah to aran, hmm, i actually don't think that we can just leave it at "God's will/rule" = universal justice. While the two happen to be equivalent, I think that justice cannot be determined simply by what God does, but is a separate concept. Or else God being good and just are meaningless descriptions, since we're describing him with words which we define based on his actions...kinda circular =P.
Instead, and this goes back to Choe's question, I think that it is weird. And though I will try and explain my perspective on it as best as possible, I'm sure it'll be muddled at best.
Without God there is no world/universe/life/anything. Without anything, justice is meaningless. So I would argue that only with the entrance/existence of God did justice (or proper relations between life forms) come into being. Now, though God introduced it, i don't think he would ever want to, or in a way could choose it arbitrarily/in any other way. I believe that the way he chose it must have made relationships self-sustaining (or else it would just defeat/destroy itself). So in a way, it was necessitated in a logical/rational kinda way (If justice = strong dominating weak, then everything that is done is considered just. Your ability to make something happen means that it is right...then what is the point of asking if it's right or wrong...it's just a question of whether or not it can happen. Consider person debating if he should kill another person. If he does, he's stronger so it's right. If he doesn't, he's strong enough to make sure it doesn't happen, so it's also right...everything is justifiable)
As an atheist, I believed there was no such thing as justice. How can you define how one "should" relate to another person? Who's to choose one way over another if two people disagree (no sense thing as something inherent inside each person that tells us how we should act if that's what people are thinking)? I think that "justice" would be hmmm, an unsupportable term. Our actions therefore would only be limited by what we "could" do, and there would be nothing that we "should" do.
Whew, hope that made a little sense...
Joey,
Good point, when trying to define justice, we try to define it independent of God simply because if we say God is justice, we still have no clue what justice exactly is for we do not even have a full understanding of God.
Granted if we belief in God, then we are content to accept that God exercises his justice (and that is a very valid view point).
However, I've found that trying to define justice independently is very difficult. So far we've learned about classical liberalism's definition of justice and Plato's definition, and both fall apart too easily. At the same time I've tried to attack Thrasymachus's claim, but admittedly I haven't really been able to do so. His second and much more provocative claim is: why should we do what is morally right if we gain more by doing what is morally wrong (while still avoiding negative consequences). That is to say, suppose I can rob someone on the street and get away clean. Why shouldn't I do it? Thrasymachus says the strong members of society can do this and the highest virtue is prudence.
Of course, I believe that as a Christian, one would do what is right for his love of God. However, the question remains heavy for the atheist. Why should the atheist do what is right? He/she, as far as I know, cannot define justice in its entirety (I believe no one can). Yet, it seems as if they restrain themselves to some moral law.
Hm this is so interesting. Joey, I actually thought that this was your personal blog and didn't realize until now that it's a community blog. I have to say that this is a very cool idea!
In response to the philosophical discussion at hand...
Both you and Choe have made interesting comments - we can't define justice by "God's will/rule" because 1) this definition would be based on his actions instead of his nature therefore denying his divinity and also 2)because it simply is not a clear definition since humans do not understand God completely. Choe also pointed out that Christians would be content with accepting that they do not practice justice. Rather, they trust that God will perform justice and Christians should do what pleases God. Am I understanding that correctly?
I agree with these points and relating to the last point - I think this points out a characteristic that is admirable of Christians. That is, the virtue of being comfortable with the uncertainties that are in life - this takes courage.
Continuing on from that thought, I'm realizing that this is actually a very serious issue for non-Christians. For those who do not serve a just God, how then should one live one's life? If one cannot solve this issue, then one is living life mindlessly and without purpose. I would argue that if individuals do not find a solution, he or she is simply living his or her entire life vicariously through the people in his or her immediate surroundings. This is probably a simple thought to you guys, but it's a pretty alarming thought for me.
Hope it makes sense.
Aran
So spring break is finally here, allowing me to think about important stuff finally haha =P
So I agree with both of you in that as an atheist, I saw this world/life almost as hmmm, a "dream" where there are no rules to which you have to abide and no end consequences. When you die, that's the end of the game... and the only "rules" are simple cause and effect ones where I know if I rob someone and get caught I will be put in jail. But in terms of moral laws, I do not believe that you can come up with any. There are social norms and what other people and perhaps you yourself feel to be right, but what justifies those feelings either? What I mean is if you really feel like helping other people is the right thing to do, there is nothing supporting that. Going back to the dream example, we've all had situations where we feel as if it "makes sense", it's the "right thing to do" and we go ahead and do it...then we wake up and it makes no sense. Life without anything after or a creator is in my opinion no different from that dream... pressures (such as social, emotional, physical pressures not to kill) but no rules, cause and effect within the game but no ultimate consequence if you end in jail or on go.
And it was pretty alarming for me Aran, when I first realized it too, just read a book encouraging atheism, which made me think that we're just a buncha cells put together to collect and store energy in the most efficient way possible so that we can pass on our genes. But now that I realize that, what's stopping me from using this opportunity to do something else as my life goal, and if everybody else is just a buncha cells, and will just fall apart in the end, why should i care about the consequences of my actions upon their well-being?
To specifically respond to a few things:
Choe's "Yet, it seems as if they restrain themselves to some moral law." - that's what I imagine to be the pressures upon an existence should there actually be no God (it's what we would be doing if God didn't exist as well)
Choe's "His second and much more provocative claim is: why should we do what is morally right if we gain more by doing what is morally wrong (while still avoiding negative consequences). That is to say, suppose I can rob someone on the street and get away clean. Why shouldn't I do it?" - I believe that both a person who believes in no God (in all circumstances) and a person who believes in God (in the case that he is not true) both should have no real argument against this.
Aran's- "Choe also pointed out that Christians would be content with accepting that they do not practice justice. Rather, they trust that God will perform justice and Christians should do what pleases God. Am I understanding that correctly?" - I think you're right, but it just needs a minor condition thrown in that we should do what pleases God because he is all-good and delights in things that are good (again good somehow being defined outside of God)
i'd like to hear what shoe and ktao have to say as well as daeyeon too
Post a Comment