Download Is Justice a Matter of One`s Constitution paper

Help Received: Writing Center,
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Illustrated Readings
Is Justice a Matter of One’s Constitution?
By: Cadet Andrew Smith
ERH-207W-02
Mr. Morgan
December 10, 2015
Word Count: 1757
Throughout this class I have sat and listened to my teacher talk about justice; what
it is, how to achieve pure justice, and if justice really is necessary in our lives. There have
been many inquiries made on the subject, both in the days of Aristotle and in our class
but in each case, I was not sufficiently persuaded in the arguments presented. Why would
someone choose justice over self-interest? Is self-preservation not the law of nature? In
this paper I will attempt to answer the question of what justice really is and if that justice
is dependent on the constitution of an individual, using arguments from Socrates, Plato,
and Mill.
In Plato’s Republic, where he recounts the viewpoints of Socrates complete with
Plato’s own views, Socrates is at a dinner party with other philosophers and learned men
of the city and he decides to pose a question to the group: what is justice. This question
consumed philosophers for centuries and still continues to be a point of contention but in
explaining his theory of what justice was, Socrates uses the analogy of a city. This city is
broken up into three groups of people, the guardians, the auxiliaries, and the producers.
These three groups are kept together and educated equally up until they reach
adolescence where they are given a set of tests to determine which group they are suited
for (The Republic, Book 5). The guardians are the leaders of the city who excel in
wisdom, virtue, and knowledge on how to run the city and since the city is not a
democratic city and the guardians are in direct control, their virtue translates into the
virtue of the city. The auxiliaries are the soldiers of the city that must defend it in times of
war and as such they are chosen based on their virtue of courage. Wisdom and courage
are virtues passed on to the city through the guardians and the auxiliaries; moderation and
justice, however, are virtues that the whole city is responsible to maintain. Moderation is
2
evident in the decision on who rules over the city while justice is the law that states all
members of the groups do the job for which they are chosen for. This city-wide
identification of justice is analogous to justice within the soul of an individual (The
Republic, Book 4).
The individual soul is comprised of three dominant desires of the soul, much like
the groups that make up the just city. These three desires are: the rational desire, the
spiritual desire, and the appetitive desire. The rational desire seeks truth, the spirited
desire seeks honor, and the appetitive desire seeks everything else. In the soul, the
rational desire is analogous to the guardian of the city, the spirited desire is analogous to
the auxiliaries and the appetitive desire is analogous to the producing class. In the soul of
a person who is just, the rational desire rules the other two desires of the soul, but is aided
by the spirited desire in helping to keep the appetitive desire repressed. The rational
desires of the soul are said to rule over the other two desires when the entire soul of that
individual is dedicated to seeking truth, or if the spirited desire is dominant in the
individual, that individual is dedicated to seeking honor and so on. Socrates states that
while many believe justice to be a set of actions, it is really the result of a properly
balanced soul. A harmonious , just soul, as a result of its desire to seek truth, will never
fall into the vice of the other desires because that desire for truth is stronger than the other
desires and as such a just man will always be just. One of the first benefits that come
from being just, according to Socrates, is that of a healthy soul. An unhealthy soul
adversely would result from being unjust (The Republic, Book 6).
A man with an unjust soul, who is ruled by a desire other than that of the rational
desire, is drawn to do unthinkable, heinous crimes. Socrates states that all men have evil
3
desires but that those desires are only entertained by the just man’s mind at night when he
is sleeping and the rational part of the mind is not engaged. An unjust man, however,
allows those unjust thoughts and desires to be entertained in his soul during all moments
of his life without any thought to just behavior. An unjust man begins the process of
becoming unjust as a child when he is allowed to be surrounded by vicious, lawless
individuals who plant unjust thoughts into his head and as he grows into adulthood, those
seeds of injustice grow to consume him. The unjust man allows the appetitive desire to
rule him and he yearns for nothing more than the vices of the world, slowly tearing his
life apart with his erroneous living. He wastes all his money, alienates all his friends with
his deceitful actions and begins to beg, barrow, steal, and murder for everything he has.
Socrates states that this disgraceful life is surpassed only by one other type of life, that of
a public tyrant. A political tyrant experiences all of the degradation that the lawless man
experiences, only on a grander scale. The tyrant is constantly living in fear for his life that
those he has enslaved will rise up and kill him and because of this constant strain and
worry, his soul becomes degraded and unhealthy. Socrates states that, through this
example, it is abundantly clear that living a just life is far more pleasant and happy than
living a life ruled by honor-seeking and appetitive lust (The Republic, Book 9).
Socrates believes that there are 3 types of people in the world, all who believe that
the desire that rules over their soul brings them the most pleasure but who can really
know for sure, if that desire is all they have ever known? A philosopher has experienced
all three desires and has continued to support the philosophy that a soul governed by the
rationale desire brings one the most happiness, health, and pleasure (Kraut).
4
With Socrates argument represented completely and in unbiased fashion we turn
to the opposing argument for what justice truly is when we examine John Stuart Mills
“Utilitarianism.” John Mill aims, in his argument, to determine whether or not justice is
its own entity in the natural order of things or if justice is just the end result of a blend of
other emotions. In order to do this, Mill makes a list of several actions which are widely
accepted to be just or unjust. Mill states that it is unjust to deprive a human of his rights.
Rights can be given to humans through unjust laws, however, excluding the definition of
justice as being those laws which are set in place. It is unjust if a right that a human has a
moral claim to is taken away. It is unjust to give something to someone that they do not
deserve or vice versa and that it is unjust to break a pact with someone if you knowingly
lead them to believe that you would uphold that pact. It is unjust to show partiality in
most circumstances and it is considered just to promote equality. Based on this list of
generally just or unjust concepts, Mill struggles to see how they connect but believes that
while humans do not know what makes up the basis of justice, they can still discern what
is and is not just. The origins of the word justice were used to describe obedience to a law
but since some laws are considered unjust, it has evolved to be a word that represents
laws which do exist and also ones that should exist. Through this logical progression,
Mill comes to belief that Justice is a perfect obligation to retaliate if someone has
infringed on your rights, that rights are what tie all of those previously listed examples
together.
Now that Mill has gotten a basic understanding of what justice is, he begins to
explore whether it is a natural response to a wrong or if this response is based in utility.
He believes that there are two parts to justice, first that there is a longing to punish
5
someone who has caused damage and second that there is someone who has been harmed
in this violation of justice. This concept is based in our natural instincts as animals to
acquire retribution due to our feeling of sympathy for the individual wronged. Moral law
dictates that it is never acceptable to wrong another human being and this, Mill believes,
supersedes any other law or just right that may be present in society. Under this thought
process, it is imperative to uphold justice because justice ensures harmony in society and
prevents the infringement of moral rights. The Greatest Happiness Principle, to which
Mill is a supporter, is only valid if everyone’s happiness is valued as equal, which equal
opportunity for happiness. Mill concludes that the term Justice is used to describe a
certain set of moral obligations that are some of the highest faculties in the utilitarian
theology and that under most circumstances it is unacceptable to break one of these
obligations.
Socrates believes that justice is the result of a properly balanced soul while Mill
believes that justice is the term we use to describe a set of moral obligations stemming
from our desire to have retribution on those who have wronged society. My opinion is
that justice, in the purest sense, comes from having a soul with all three parts in harmony
with one another. While I believe that Mill is somewhat correct as far as the moral
obligations part of his argument is concerned, I think he loses sight of true justice when
he throws in the part about it stemming from our natural tendency to want retribution.
Seeking retribution is not just, Mill contradicts himself in that he believes justice is
partially retribution but then says that it is never acceptable to harm a human being.
6
Bibliography

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. 1861. Book 5. Print.

The Republic. Book 4,5,6,9. Print.

Kraut, Richard, "Aristotle's Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Summer 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/aristotle-ethics/>.
7