Justice and Lawfulness

When one speaks of justice, the first thing that normally comes to mind is punishment, rectification for wrongs, imprisonment, even death in some instances. Such things as pleonexia would not even be considered an injustice by many unless one was to commit a crime in order to fulfill one’s desire for material wealth as they were in the time of Aristotle. In Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus makes the assertion that people are only just because it is in their best interest to be just. This idea was not uncommon at the time, as Thucydides makes known in his The War of the Peloponnesians and the Athenians when the Athenians are addressing the Spartan Assembly:

As for good will from the divine, neither do we suppose that we will fall short. For we are neither claiming as our right nor are we doing anything outside of human belief with regard to the divine or human wish with regard to themselves. For we think, on the basis of opinion, regarding the divine, and on the clear basis of a permanent compulsion of nature, regarding the human, that wherever they have the might, they rule. And we neither laid down the law nor are we the first to have used it as laid down, but we received it in existence and we will leave it behind us in existence forever; and we use it in the knowledge that both you and others, if you came to have the same power as we have, would do it too (Strauss 14).

This justification for the Athenians attack on the Peloponnesians was used in order to try to dissuade the Spartans from intervening in the war that the Athenians had begun. A common belief of the time was that justice is of no account in human matters unless it was forced upon one party by another of equal power—justice was whatever the strong believed it was (Strauss 14).

Now it is clear that in the hundred or so years between Thucydides and Aristotle that the philosophy had begun to change with regard to justice among the learned, but, at least during Plato’s time, the idea still held strong among some of the people, and it is reasonable to infer that it held in Aristotle’s as well. Even in modern times this assertion has been made by states; Nazi Germany comes to mind as an extreme example and, some would argue, the United States as a much more benign case (relatively speaking). Both of these countries have used their military might to oppress others through actual force and legislative action.

Taking this into account, it is interesting that Aristotle makes the assumption that all laws are inherently just when he makes the claim that lawlessness is equivalent to injustice (Westphal 74). Aristotle makes a habit of making assertions and then assuming that the same can be said about the opposite, “…the lawless person and the greedy and unfair person seem to be unjust; and so…the lawful and the fair person will be just” (Westphal 74). Would it not be just to break an unjust law? By virtue of the fact that those in control are in control, they are seen by Aristotle to be virtuous. This would lead one to believe that, since those in power made laws, whatever laws they enact are inherently just by virtue of the fact that those who created them are virtuous. This would mean that both Nazi Germany and the United States were justified in their actions. Even the suggestion of this is completely abhorrent and clearly points out a flaw in the logic of the divine right of rulers, which was a widely held belief at the time. Therefore it cannot be asserted that by virtue of the fact that one is lawful that one is also just as Aristotle does under “General Justice”.

Works Cited

Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey. "Thucydides." History of Political Philosophy. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972. 14. Print.

Westphal, Jonathan. "Plato." Justice. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 1996. 37-72. Print.

The American Dream is the idea that someone can come from nothing and rise to the top through perseverance, dedication, and hard work to achieve the ideal lifestyle. I think that in a lot of ways this is a respectable dream. In our society the qualities that it takes to achieve the American dream are considered to be virtues. Therefore it seems like a good thing for the dream to be encouraged because it promotes people to live virtuously. When someone who is born into unfortunate circumstances is inspired by the American dream and works diligently to make something of himself he is seen as an admirable man who deserves everything he has because he worked hard for it. It seems fair for him to have a good life because he earned a good life. The problem with the American dream is that the lifestyle that it promotes is not achievable. The American dream represents an ideal life and it sets expectations that people cannot reach. The dream is more than a man who perseveres and works his way into a spot in the upper-middle class, it is a man who works his way into the perfect life. This idealistic life of a happy marriage, 2 perfect kids, financial security, and general success is not achievable. It is true that someone can rise from a bad situation and make something of himself, but just because he has the virtue of perseverance does not mean that he will be able to achieve the picturesque life that the American dream tells us to strive for. Determination can get someone from a bad situation to a better one, but even the privileged life of an upper-middle class American is not perfect. Good hard working people can still lose their jobs, have failed marriages, and suffer losses. The American dream is a noble lie in that the lifestyle it represents is not realistically achievable but it is still noble because it inspires people to work to improve their lives through the virtues of perseverance and determination.

The Positive Selfishness

In today‘s class, we began our section about Aristotle and his view of justice. In the course of the conversation, we also discussed the question, if people, who are acting in the most virtuous way, should also be the ones, who get the most (monetary) reward. One position during this discussion was arguing that acting virtuously should not be done because of an expected reward, but for the sake of virtue itself. This is, what Aristotle and a lot of other philosophers claimed.

I would like to bring up another consideration, I already thought of often times:

If we talk about that person, who acts virtuously and gets therefore rewarded, not only monetary, but also with honor and a higher social status, I personally belief that no one would do these actions without looking at their consequences, which, as a matter of course, should in this case be positive. Assuming this point as a fact, we could argue further that every little step a human being does ever take in his life, aims towards a goal from which he (or she) personally benefits. So to speak, there is no selfless act. Certainly, the first reaction of the most people is negative, but why do we always consider selfless actions as better? Unlike my countryman Kant, one could argue that it does not matter, WHY somebody acts in a special way, but THAT he does so. For example, it does not matter, if you don‘t kill your neighbor, because you fear the punishment or because you are such a good person. The consequence is the same - your neighbor is still alive.

But the central point of my thought is that even if somebody does not kill his neighbor, because he is a good person, one could say, he only is a good person (virtuous person), because he for himself wants to be such a person. So, again, it is a selfish action. It‘s not about, what other wants, it‘s always an egoistic decision. We can enlarge this view on everything in our lives, for example love: If you are in love with somebody, you want to be with this person, you want to care for this person, and be good to her/him - but why? Because otherwise, it would hurt you, so it is just a try to avoid pain and again a selfish action.

Even if Aristotle wants to act virtuously, then he does it because HE wants it, he wants to follow HIS rules, HIS reason, because otherwise he would suffer from an inner punishment.

At the beginning, this seems to be a very negative view on our lives, but I don‘t think so. Personally, I think, when we accept that everybody acts this way, it is way easier to accept other opinions, other ways of living and we lose a lot of social pressure.

What do you guys think about this theory?

The Noble Lies We Tell

There has been a lot of discussion over what Plato describes as a 'Noble Lie'. In order to maintain a stable society, he argues, and to have each part be content in its own purpose, the noble lie of the metal content in one’s must be told. This was the first reference to a noble lie. On Wednesday it was brought up whether ‘The American Dream’ was a noble lie. The discussion had an unclear definition of the American Dream in which there is a distinction needed to be made. While I do not personally know exactly what others meant, I would definitely argue that one noble lie in particular exists in America: the lie of distributive justice, and that isn’t necessarily what The American Dream entails.
Aristotle describes distributive justice many times, but the general idea is that, '(w)hat is just is what is proportionate, and what is unjust is what is counterproportionate.' (pg. 79). It relies on equality, 'for the people involved' (pg. 78). Under this idea of justice, any person who does just things will receive good and just things/actions back and the opposite for unjust people. People began giving this idea of justice the title 'American Dream', however I think this in an inaccurate portrayal of the actual noble lie involved in distributive justice. Americans definitely have a naive sense of 'karma' (which is an idea very similar to distributive justice), in that there is a sometimes unspoken belief of 'what one puts out into the world, they will get back'. (Or in Aristotelian terms, if one does just actions, just actions will be returned i.e. distributive justice).
The key distinction between the American Dream and the noble lie of distributive justice is that the idea of the dream is that if someone puts hard work into his or her life, typically in terms of career or education, they will see results; whereas with distributive justice, it relies on all people involved acting justly or else one just person will be subject to unjust actions performed by others. Due to other peoples' actions being unreliable, distributive justice cannot be constant in a society. Quite simply: Sometimes just people have unjust things done to them by others. The noble lie of good things being returned to a good person is quite impossible to always be true.

It makes sense a society would not want to dispel this particular noble lie. If people are under the impression that they will be rewarded for their good deeds, they are more likely to continue in a just way of life. That is not to say all people only do good actions for a self-involved reason, but it will definitely cause more people to act justly. This is yet another thing reliance on chance: the chance another person will act justly vs. unjustly. If someone puts work into his or her career, yes they are more likely to advance. At the same time, if someone is nice to everyone on the street or courageous in battle, that does not mean he or she will receive pleasantries from strangers or similar attitude in his or her battalion.

The Relation Between Justice and Virtue

At the end of the Wednesday lecture it was brought up that, according to Aristotle, a just person is one that is virtuous, in that a just person is one who practices a virtue that benefits the community as a whole. Temperance and an idea of "the greater good" are just qualities, while greedy personal gain and extremes are unjust qualities. However, Aristotle points out that "virtue is the same as justice, but what it is to be virtue is not the same as it is to be justice." I think this is supposed to mean that one can come to a virtue through unjust means, and thus make an injustice, which was brought up at the end of the lecture.

However, why is it an injustice? If a virtue is just, why would it ever be unjust, regardless of how they are accomplished. Aristotle claims that the worst person is one "who exercises his vice toward himself . . . . as well[ as toward others,]" while the best person is one that exercises a virtue toward the entire community. How then, could a person express a virtue, and have it still considered a virtue, while being an unjust person? Aristotle supposes that a person who is virtuous would be "brave .... temperate .... mild" and that "the correctly established law [instills] this correctly." This seems to imply that only someone who is following the law can be brave, temperate, and mild, and thus, are just qualities. But could not someone who is obviously "unjust" such also have such qualities? Or thinking about this on a multicultural scale, could what one country sees as brave, temperate, and mild be taken by another as cowardly, greedy, and aggressive? Are there examples of this in our lives today? Is that person still just in their society while being unjust in another? Is it possible for someone to occupy both the spaces of being just and unjust? Say if an American was seen as just in America and unjust in Canada, would the American be just because in their country, that is so? Or does justice extend past boarders, especially in an increasingly boarderless world? By all of this, I mean to say that the idea of virtues are subjective to a culture and can even subjective to a circumstance. Then, given the global world and all the cultures and values contained within it, can a "greater good" be established?

The American Dream

In class, we spent a good deal of time discussing the “American Dream,” only to have a student point out that we had not yet defined it. So, for this post, the American Dream refers to a situation where someone makes something out of nothing, a rags-to-riches tale where the antagonist bursts through the social plateau on which he was birthed and through hard work and an unwavering spirit arrives at a better life financially. In my opinion, the American Dream has nothing to do with doing good or virtuous things; the values that it hinges on seem much more related to the payoff of passion and dedication.

Someone in class also brought up the concept of the American Dream being a noble lie. This conflicts with one major principle of a noble lie, but it agrees with many of its important facets such as it being a lofty goal with the purpose of motivating the citizens. The obvious argument against the American Dream being a noble lie is the simple fact that it exists, for there have been numerous counts of someone rising from the bottom to the top in American History. The American Dream simply cannot be a lie if it has occurred. I think the problem people have with this, is that if one takes the American Dream to mean, in mathematical terms: person + virtuous acts + hard work = financial and spiritual success, then they could point out many cases where hard work and virtuousness did not produce both financial and spiritual success.

The only problem is, when has a history book ever described the American Dream as having anything to do with being a good person…? Or that person reaching anything other than financial success? I agree with Socrates (in his argument with Thrasymachus) when he states that a just person will live a happier life than his unjust counterpart, but he mentions nothing of individual, monetary gain.

A logical argument against this would be that if a person has achieved the American Dream, they have most likely found their ergon, which would mean that they fall into the most important category of Socrates’ definition of a just person/society. This makes sense, but if everyone reached his or her American Dream justly, why would Socrates have created the checks and balances three-class system? He took into account that there would still be individual wrongdoing, and that is why he created his world with those groups. Because the American Dream is just, doesn’t necessarily mean that the road to glory follows the same path.

It Stings to be Selfless

Philosophers and social scientists have questioned the ability for humans to truly perform a selfless act.  Does a selfless act exist if one feels reward for doing such act? Even if the person seeks to perform a selfless act with the intention of receiving no thanks for such supposed act a thanks may still be rewarded. This was discussed in class today and seemed to be in consensus that if an individual performs a selfless act with no intention of the reward then yes that act may be selfless. However, it seems that with these selfless acts some reward will follow. Those that were in question were those individuals who do selfless acts but see the product of their selfless act as a form of success.

Instead of focusing on the readings from class I wanted to bring in a modern day example that may be more relatable to the subject and provide a more relatable example to the topic. In an episode of Friends , Joey and Phoebe engage in a competition to see if one kin find a truly selfless act. The two characters question is there an act in which someone may benefit from the act while the person performing the act will not receive anything in return?

Phoebe sets out to prove Joey wrong. Her selfless act is to allow a bee to sting her in order to make the bee appear cool in front of his bee friends. She claims that she has received no such award from her selfless act because she is in pain from the bee sting. Joey then points out to Phoebe that the bee will not benefit from her selfless act because he will soon die after losing his stinger in Phoebes arm.

Phoebe’s last effort comes when she makes a $200 pledge to CBS, a program in which she has no respect or concern for. She makes the donation because Joey is participating in the local fundraiser on live broadcast and hopes her pledge will aid in his promising acting career. Little does Phoebe know that her donation will land Joey on camera. Her act now has an unintended benefit of providing Joey with an on camera appearance.   Obviously Phoebe had no intention of landing Joey on camera but she still did inadvertently help her friend. Damned by her selflessact Phoebe is still rewarded by the act that helped her friend Joey.

This modern example of what philosopher’s and our class questioned today demonstrates that it is difficult if not impossible to prove the existence of a truly selfless act. Do humans ultimately possess an altruism that allows them to perform these acts in the first place? What is the basis for human’s good deeds? This brings in to question the idea of the American Dream, if we do all things good will we be rewarded? I hope someone can expand on the American Dream idea in a subsequent blog post.

A Simple Dilemma

Peter Hall

September 1, 2011

Article 1

This week we discussed the foundation and root of “justice.” We came to realize the word has many different interpretations. On Monday we debated the biggest injustice done to oneself. Affirmative Action was mentioned and I will use this blog to continue its discussion. Race in society is a very intriguing subject due to its sensitivity. Should it be incorporated in every economic, social, and political issue that faces the whole group of citizens? Imagine a teenager in north Memphis living in an underprivileged household. His tiny “house” holds 8 family members very uncomfortably and he is forced to look after his cousins countless hours a week because his mother works long hours. There is no college fund set up, nor any expectations that further education is an option. He needs to help his family financially so he picks up a part time night job that won’t interfere with high school. But it leaves him no time to study or prepare for classes like his peers. He is bright individual and has a relentless work ethic. He cannot afford SAT prep classes and could barely pay for the test itself. Could he be the next president, CEO, teacher, or Lawyer if he gets into a college? We will never know. If Affirmative Action is implemented this young man could have a new chance at life and use his talents rather than fall into a life of blue collar work with little to aspire to.

Now imagine another teenager who has been in and out of SAT Prep, AP/IB classes, and internships. He lives in a large house in a gated community; his parents went to Ivy League schools and have extraordinary expectations for his future. If he does not get into an Ivy League he will be considered a disappointment and will bring the family social embarrassment. Just like the other teenager, he had no choice what family to be born into and should not take punishment for family financial standing. He has an illustrious resume, and almost aced the SAT. There is one last space open at an Ivy League school, and both teenagers apply. Who should get accepted?

Both examples can use “justice” to strengthen their case. If affirmative action was implemented in this situation, the underprivileged teenager would gain admittance over the other. The privileged student would go to another less distinguished school like Rhodes or a state school, but would get ridiculed by his family. If Affirmative Action didn’t take place the privileged student would be admitted and the other would continue his life in north Memphis. Who do you think should be accepted and why? Notice that race was never specified in this situation. It can obviously be inferred but what if affirmative action was categorized by social class rather than by race. If we are trying to make college acceptance easier for minorities, should privileged upper class students be penalized? What is “just” in this situation? What if the north Memphis teenager was white and the privileged student was black, would that change your decision?

The Role of Assumptions in Plato, More and Borges

Each postulate of Plato’s Republic is based on certain assumptions about human nature and the world around us, some of which are undeniable and some of which are incomplete. This does not necessarily invalidate his conclusions, but it is essential to examine all the underlying ideas that motivate each particular statement. This is a central feature of the analysis of any work of philosophy, and not unique to the Republic – though nor is it invalid when reading fiction, such as Borges’ Lottery.

In argument with Socrates, Thrasymachus states that “A just man always gets less than an unjust one…when taxes are to be paid, a just man pays more on the same property, an unjust one less…” (45). This represents the essential characteristic of justice that we discussed in class: fairness. In this situation, it is clearly just for everyone to pay taxes in the same amount on the same property. However, is this true and truly fair in every situation? Should all levels of society be taxed in the same manner, or are taxes strictly necessary? We can ask these questions because we know Plato lived in a democracy that collected taxes and which included both just and unjust people, just as our society does today. We must remember, though, that in another case where taxes or unjust people or money itself are nearly absent, his speculations on the nature of justice may need adjustment to remain useful. An excellent example of such a place is found in More’s Utopia, which includes an intriguing description of one particular realization of most of Plato’s ideas.

The Republic work owes much of its lasting impact to the persistence of the democracy; hundreds of years and many failed nations have shown that it is often the least worst option. For all its examinations of justice and utilitarian ideas, Plato’s conception of an ideal society has never underpinned a stable nation; the implementation of his ideal was so thoroughly examined in the Republic that either the system itself is unworkable, as certain parts are, or Socrates and the interlocutors made faulty assumptions about human nature and desires.

If the key to a lasting society is stability produced by a satisfied populace that is or believes it is empowered, then Plato’s assumptions and reasoning should still produce a workable society. This depends on forming the Noble Lies described later in the Republic into the same type of mystic, undeniable history that the Company in Borges’ story relies upon – assuming, of course, that the Company actually exists and is not in fact a manifestation of another set of Noble Lies.

Injustice is Inevitable

In Plato’s Republic, Justice is the most prominent issue in the discussion of the formation of an ideal republic. I feel that this is a very misleading basis for creation of a society or political system. Plato/ Socrates approaches the idea of justice as an achievable goal, with the point or purpose behind the development of a political system ensuring a just society. Justice is neither an achievable goal, nor a desirable one. There is no need for perfect justice in an unjust world.

Plato’s ideal republic is formed around ideal actors, who neither represent humanity or society in any realistic sense. Given the actors Plato uses to establish his three-class system, one could ideally use any government system to achieve a perfect and just society. Suggesting that designing a government in ideal settings is effective both silly and naive. I put forward that the first thing one must establish in a society is INJUSTICE. The inevitability of conflict within any society will inherently create an unjust society, so by controlling for the inevitable, we are able to create a more structurally sound, and ideally superior, social structure. A noble lie must be told, but it must not be one of promise, but of division. Take the government system in the novel 1984. By establishing a constant threat, and ensuring constant struggle for survival, the government is able to exercise complete control over all aspects of the society. Although this idea violates many of the principles of western liberal thought process, it is inherently as sound as Plato’s classist suggestion of three hierarchically identical classes.

If injustice was accounted for within a system, and possibly shifted around towards different part of society, the greatest good for the greatest number of people could be achieved far more efficiently, and for longer, than any system hell bent on equality. Think of our modern social system, and how unjust our “fair” and balanced system is. As an upper middle class white male, I immediately have advantages in life that few in this world can ever parallel. To suggest that my life can be compared to other, less advantaged individuals within our educational, judicial, or even economic world is ignorance bordering on insanity. Although I admit that our society is getting much closer to achieving a just society in many ways, and we have pushed forward the ideals of justice more so than most cultures, I do not think that our successes are indicative of a change in human nature or society. Rather, we are an outlier, and inevitably our society will crumple back into the division and chaos that our species so woefully ignores.

Perfection Based on Imperfection

Book IV of Plato's the Republic begins with the assertion that a person is fostering justice by "doing one's own work" (58). But what exactly is one's own work? Is this doing what one enjoys? Is this doing what one is good at? Or is this doing what one is told to do?

Of course now an ideal answer would be either that "one's own work" would be what that person enjoys or excels in doing. And hopefully those even would be the same "work." After all, personal happiness and productivity are interdependent. Each thrives in its own thriving and the thriving of the other. So it is difficult for me to comprehend how it is just for someone to be doing something he does not enjoy or do well simply because he is already doing it. If I enjoy fixing watches and clocks, and if I have mastered the skills necessary to do so, there is nothing I can do that would be more productive and personally fulfilling than to fix watches and clocks. Additionally, as soon as I become aware of my having mastered the art of fixing watches and clocks, I will be more eager to utilize those skills I have. And the more I see that I can very successfully utilize those skills, the more pleased I will be with those skills and with my occupation. Moreover, doesn't any individual's doing something he loves or does well benefit the public as a whole? This occupation may end up being the most beneficial for me and for society on the whole since my skill and enjoyment encourage my fixing the watches and clocks. (Sure, this is not the most important job that exists, but there will never be any doubt of the time, which is as much as I can or want to accomplish in my occupation.)

But people are expected to remain in "the occupation in the city for which he is naturally best suited" (58). Well, who makes those decisions? Who decides his nature? His strong suit? His occupation? If anyone aside from that one person answers any of those questions, then this is not a just situation.

In reality, of course, this happens all the time. People need money to support themselves, and a job provides that money, whether or not the person doing the job enjoys it or is good at it. Although I enjoy fixing clocks and watches, perhaps someone else is better at it than I am, or perhaps there are too many people in this occupation. Then I would have to abandon the occupation I enjoy and excel in to pursue something that would not benefit myself or my community nearly as much. People do not say that situation is just, because it isn't. It's reality. Which is why I was very surprised and indignant to see that this theory of justice and a perfect state come from such an unjust reality. If we aim for what we have, we can only become a weaker society. Ideal or perfect things cannot be defined by or founded on aspects of an imperfect reality.

This is a just and ideal society only if "one's own work" is defined by that particular individual and no one else.

Game of Chance

I’d like to continue the discussion we had in class about chance and justice. As we were reading Borges’s “The Lottery in Babylon,” I couldn’t help but think how much stock we put into lotteries of our own. Of course there are the pay to play kind, where you buy a ticket to win, but there are others with much more weight (in my opinion anyway) as well.

For example, I saw Waiting for Superman when it came out last year. It’s a documentary that focuses on the education system in the United States, following several children and telling their stories. At the end of the film, every child is waiting to hear the results of a lottery; one that determines whether the child will be placed in a charter school or remain in the regular districted school. Although there are arguments about charter schools and what they do to the public school system, the fact remains that the quality of the child’s education was being determined by a lottery. The end of the documentary was filled with images of parents and children crying in sadness and celebration.

This is a literal lottery that we value for its impartiality. Not every child can attend a charter school, so chance determines who can and who cannot. On the other hand, any child who can pay for a private school has the right to attend that school. Parents can pull their children from public schools for an alternative, so long as they can afford it. Isn’t that just another type of lottery?

Although we as Americans love the ideas of equality and upward mobility, our reality doesn’t always reflect those possibilities. Over the summer, my roommate wrote a paper on integration that examined different levels of success in schools. In a discussion of her paper, a professor pointed out that many studies show that success in school is largely related to socioeconomic class. No individual chooses his class or, as we discussed in class, his family. These two things play a huge role in education, and we all believe that education plays a huge role in future success (I’m making an assumption based on the fact that we’re all at Rhodes). There is always the story of the American dream, bootstraps and bottom up and elbow grease, but how realistic is that fairytale? How much of our life is really determined by chance?

The Erring Ruler

Throughout Book I of the Republic, Socrates and Thrasymachus ponder and debate the meaning of justice. Thrasymachus is convinced that justice is doing what is to the advantage of the stronger, and he is quite persistent in this belief. In an attempt to disprove him, Socrates makes an example out of those with ruling power. As rulers are clearly the stronger people in their societies, it is apparent that Thrasymachus' definition of justice would require the citizenry to do what is to their ruler's advantage. Thus, whatever laws he chose to instate should be followed.

However, Socrates points out that rulers too are prone to make mistakes, and that there would inevitably be laws that actually disadvantage the ruler. Following Thrasymachus' logic, the citizens should instead disobey these disadvantageous laws, in order to still benefit the ruler. Of course, that would entail disobedience of the stronger, which would be unjust. All of this leads Socrates to the conclusion that Thrasymachus' definition of justice does not hold, as it leads to a contradiction of itself (41).

Thrasymachus, indignant, attempts to unearth a loophole in Socrates' argument. He declares that, in a moment of error, a ruler can no longer be considered a ruler, as he is no longer properly fulfilling his title. Therefore, Thrasymachus claims that his definition of justice still holds, since a ruler is only a ruler when he is enacting laws that are advantageous to him (42). While Socrates seems to accept this argument, I find it to be unsubstantiated: a ruler does not lose his title simply because he errs to his own disadvantage. No matter the craft, error is a normal and expected side-effect; doctors that make incorrect diagnoses are not suddenly stripped of their degrees, rather they learn from their mistakes and continue to practice. If this were not the case, there would surely no longer be any professionals in the world, as they would all have lost their right to name themselves as such.

In fact, I believe that to no longer consider an erring ruler as a ruler is simply providing him with an "out." People should always be held accountable for their mistakes, especially when they affect a mass of people. A ruler that makes such mistakes is still a ruler, though perhaps a poor one. If he passes laws that don't happen to benefit him or that lead citizens to disobey, it is his own fault.

In this line of thinking, Socrates' original contention with Thrasymachus' definition of justice still holds water. The inevitable contradiction is once again present, and Thrasymachus, yet again, seems to be incorrect.

Injustice and Basic Needs

When I was defining justice, I included in my definition that in a just society, the minimum requirement is that every person has his or her basic needs met. Even if life is not as wonderful as it could be and people do not get everything they want, I would say it is a just society because people have what they need and therefore can continue to survive. It is not realistic to assume that everyone will live the most fulfilling life possible, so we have to settle for people surviving. I know that this sounds pessimistic and that life is not just about surviving, it is about actually living but when resources are strained and inequality seems almost inevitable, it is what we have to aim for. Furthermore, if a society is rampant with crime, poverty and hunger, then that society is not fully just because people are not living in a safe environment where it is easy to survive, and they do not have their basic need of nourishment fulfilled.

Now, on Monday when we were talking about the biggest injustice we had ever experienced, I noticed that many people brought up topics that would make their lives easier and more worthwhile. I definitely think that the topics we discussed were injustices, and maybe the biggest we have experienced, but I thought it would be interesting to examine some of the smaller injustices. Things like being able to drink alcohol when you are 18 would definitely be enjoyable to some, but it is not essential for survival, so is it really that important? The injustice I came up with was that I grew up in a community that lacked diversity, whether it is socio-economic, racial, religious, etc. I think that this stunted my development as a person and did not allow me to have a realistic view of the world. My life would have been more meaningful if my community/school had been more diverse, but my basic needs were met. So… was I living a just life? My basic needs were met. I had food, shelter, clothing, an education. Or was it unjust because I did not have everything I needed to thrive?

I would like to know if people agree with the definition I explained in the beginning. I would also like to ask… Do you think people who are not sitting in a college classroom, that have not received as much education, that did not grow up with enough food or a safe place to live, would their biggest injustices be different than ours? I do not want to assume that everyone in the class always had their basic needs met, but I think it’s safe to say that the majority of us did when we were growing up.

A Different Perspective

     As I began to read “The Lottery in Babylon” the first thing to cross my mind was , “I wonder if this will be similar to Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery”?” For those who are not familiar with the short story, it chronicles a small town’s ( about 300 residents) tradition of each head of household drawing a slip , and then each member of the chosen family, including the children, drawing a slip. The person with the marked slip is surrounded by the villagers who hold rocks in their hands implying the person is stoned to death, however the story does not explicitly state this but ends there. The town members vaguely remember the specific details from when the tradition began and have abandoned certain aspects over time, however they still practice the tradition in order to ensure a good harvest. This always sparks the the question of, is this right ? To subject everyone to a random selection of sacrifice based off a tradition. The same questions arose as I read Borges’ “Lottery”. By the conclusion of the piece, the question of whether or not The Company still existed or ever did was placed on the mind of the reader. Was this just a tradition or just the way things were? This lead me to wonder, are all of our principles of what justice is and what is moral and unmoral based off a long tradition? Would we still see these things as such if somewhere in the past all of our definitions of right and wrong were inverted? 

In “The Lottery in Babylon”, once the myth of sorts is recounted, the narrator states that some believe the “sacred disorder of [their] lives is purely hereditary, traditional” (pg.9 lines 5-6). I interpreted this as the individuals involved aren't too sure whether their lottery is just or unjust because it has been going on for so long in this way. They just know it exists as is and will remain so. It seems that no one questions the institution of the lottery as a result of it being a long standing tradition. This seems similar to our society today. Many of us question our system and the way it operates, but a plenty of us never stop and think that some things are simply de facto . It is noted that a many of our implemented systems are a result of our country’s foundation being deeply religious and traditional. But, what if that were not the case and we were founded on a different set of principles? What would our standards for justice be?

-Voni