Is Justice Actually Just?

“Then this isn’t the definition of justice, speaking the truth and giving back what one takes.”

You could read these 16 words and get nothing from them all together, or your life could change. I think I might be in the second group. Many interesting and important question arise throughout book one of The Republic, and I don’t find many straightforward answers. Maybe that’s why I appreciate it so much. I don't like having questions with no answers, neither do I enjoy being told what to believe. I’ve found a nice middle ground within this first book of the Republic, as the conversations start my brain thinking on one track, but leave me to finish it on my own.

I think that one of the reasons I've been able to take ideas away from the book is because, though it was written over two thousand years ago, I find it extremely relatable. Throughout the first 34 pages of The Republic, I’ve noticed a very common trend, in that Socrates has a very open mind. This is where my connection comes in. I feel that the book has a lot of symbolism in it- which really wasn’t hard to find once I started looking.

Socrates certainly has an open mind, but what if he represented one? If Socrates represents an open mind, it’s not hard to see him debating with the obstacles that often prevent my own mind from wanting to adapt and expand.

Cephalus, my desire to sometimes keep things simple. It’s often easier to choose to see things in black and white, or to think that the “old way” is the right way. Cephalus is definitely similar to the part of me that wants to avoid change.

Personally, I don’t know how much of Polemarchus I have in me. I think that he is a symbol of power, especially considering his initial view on the art of justice, “The one that gives benefits and harms to friends and enemies,” respectively. His idea of “enemies are bad, friends are good,” seems to really be in line with the ideas of most politicians these days. He even goes so far as to basically say that the just man is good in no situations when being compared to someone who would save him money. Though I wouldn’t call myself power-hungry, I too am often driven by greed.

Thrasymachus, I think, is the part of me that just wants answers. Sometimes I get sick of listening to other people’s opinions, or coming up with new ideas, or wanting my whole perception of life to change. Thrasymachus seems to be bored of all of the “oh, after you,” idea, and sometimes I am too.

However, usually the Socrates in me- my inner curiosity, trumps all of those other voices, as I decide to explore and expand what I thought I knew. Well, here goes.

Justice isn’t actually just. Confused? Yep. Me too. The definition of justice is “just behavior or treatment,” and the definition of just is “based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.” But “morally right” and “fair” are two totally different things, right? If I were dictionary.com, I would change “morally right and fair” to “morally right or fair.” I think that justice from the viewpoint of the law is being fair, getting what you’ve earned or giving back what you’ve stolen. I would say that that is how most people would define justice in its simplest form. But if we asked people what characteristics would be found in a just man, I’m sure opinions would lean more towards “morally right.” So if you were to hurt someone who had hurt someone else, it may be fair, but morally, hurting people is never right.

Polemarchus and Socrates come to a similar conclusion in the first 15 or so pages of The Republic. At the beginning of their argument, Polemarchus has his own definition of justice, and after a bit of debating and adjusting, Socrates says this;

“...It is just to do good to the friend, if he is good, and harm to the enemy, if he is bad.” And with Polemarchus’ response, they continue to speak.
““Most certainly,” he said. “Said in that way it would be fine in my opinion.”
“Is it then,” I said, “the part of a just man to harm any human being whatsoever?”
“Certainly,” he said, “bad men and enemies ought to be harmed.””

But then Socrates brings up a solid point. If you harm a dog or a horse, they become worse. Well, shouldn’t the same be said of humans? As Socrates so well put it; “Then, my friend, human beings who have been harmed necessarily become more unjust.” However, if harming anyone makes that person more unjust, then harming itself is never just, or as Socrates said, “For I suppose that cooling is not the work of heat, but of its opposite [...] Nor is harming, in fact, the work of the good but of its opposite.”

And as I said earlier, the two men come to the conclusion that if the just man is good, then it is never just to harm anyone- no matter the situation. Keeping this in mind, I want to go back to Socrates’ conversation with Cephalus.

Speaking about character and the relationship it has with experiences, these two men touch on many different topics, but mainly focus on money. At one point, Socrates says, “...You didn’t seem overly fond of money. For the most part, those who do not make money themselves are that way. Those who do make it are twice as attached to it as the others. For just as poets are fond of their poems and fathers of their children, so money-makers are too serious about it for the same reason other men are- for its use. They are, therefore, hard even to be with because they are willing to praise nothing but wealth.”

This paragraph had a lot in it, but what I really took away from it is what you have or what is given to you is who you are. So then I asked myself a question: If what you have been given is how you become, then the just man is that way because he has seen justice. However, as with many questions I ask myself, I quickly found a contradiction.

For if justice (harming those who have earned it) is only executed by those who are unjust, or bad, because it is never just to harm anyone, then justice (being fair) isn’t actually just (morally right). So justice isn’t just, right?

Further into this, a just man can only be morally sound if he has never been exposed to justice! Similarly, the unjust man became the way that he is because of justice. Men who call themselves just probably take it upon themselves to exercise justice, and therefore are actually unjust. Sadly, the unjust man who thinks himself just will look to the future with hope, unconscious of bad deeds, because of the way he views himself. A man who is truly good and just will fear the future in his old age because he is aware of his every misstep and what kind of wake he leaves behind him.

In summary, those who are unjust became that way through justice, and the man unexposed to justice is truly just. In order to make the world a better place, we must stop harming those around us, and creating unjust people, and instead use our morals and treat people kindly. By removing the idea of executing justice, we will make the world a more just place.