Six Socratic Questions: Question #1: What is Justice?

[JoshB]

I do feel it pertinent to tell of the origin of justice as described by Glaucon in Plato's Republic:

"...And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had the experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think they had better agree amongst themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is determined by them lawful and just....justice; it is a mean or compromise...and justice, being at the middle point, is tolerated not as good, but as the lesser evil, and honored by reason of the inability of men to do injustice."

I bring up the question "what is justice". These are questions that need to be answered:

1. Should justice be blind?

2. What is a "just law"?

3. Where lies the balance or "middle point" as described in the excerpt of Plato's Republic? Or, to rephrase, what should supreme justice be like?

4. What is a "just punishment"?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 20:

What about corporal punishment?

I'm not so averse to its use in extreme cases, even to the point of the victim being involved. IMO a great way to show the perpetrator the error of his ways is to inflict on him what he inflicts on others.

[JoshB]

And now we backtrack into an eye for an eye.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 22:

And now we backtrack into an eye for an eye.

In case folks read that a different way than I am, I don't see that I'm backtracking.

If you mean the angle I propose is backtracking from current practice, I don't see why that's a relevant argument, in that it doesn't really address why it's such a bad thing to do.

If we concern ourselves with just laws, what could be more just than making the perpetrator face the same thing he did to the victim? (With previously mentioned caveats regarding circumstances.)

[justifyothers]

I do feel it pertinent to tell of the origin of justice as described by Glaucon in Plato's Republic:

"...And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had the experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think they had better agree amongst themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is determined by them lawful and just....justice; it is a mean or compromise...and justice, being at the middle point, is tolerated not as good, but as the lesser evil, and honored by reason of the inability of men to do injustice."

I bring up the question "what is justice". These are questions that need to be answered:

1. Should justice be blind?

2. What is a "just law"?

3. Where lies the balance or "middle point" as described in the excerpt of Plato's Republic? Or, to rephrase, what should supreme justice be like?

4. What is a "just punishment"?

Isn't justice kind of like beauty? ...in the eye of the beholder?

[JoshB]

In case folks read that a different way than I am, I don't see that I'm backtracking.

If you mean the angle I propose is backtracking from current practice, I don't see why that's a relevant argument, in that it doesn't really address why it's such a bad thing to do.

If we concern ourselves with just laws, what could be more just than making the perpetrator face the same thing he did to the victim? (With previously mentioned caveats regarding circumstances.)

Ok...backtracking wasn't the right word...I think I thought you stood against eye-for-an-eye philosophy in on of your former posts...but seeing how the search shows you didn't, I was wrong to say so (or just didn't look hard enough).

But I don't see how doing a crime in return of a crime would work, or how it would be just, if the punishment for breaking the law requires law-upholders to ultimately break the law....I think this argument was posed by Winepusher some time earlier...And I think with there being soooo many kinds of crimes affecting soooo many kinds of people, at some points it wouldn't be possible to use an eye-for-an-eye philosophy. I suppose thats why standard punishments (jail sentences) are used in all crimes unless circumstances deem it unnecessary.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 25:

Ok...backtracking wasn't the right word...I think I thought you stood against eye-for-an-eye philosophy in on of your former posts...but seeing how the search shows you didn't, I was wrong to say so (or just didn't look hard enough).

When confined solely to "an eye for and eye for adults that all agree should know better", I don't object. Adding other contexts and circumstances may or may not change that.

But I don't see how doing a crime in return of a crime would work, or how it would be just, if the punishment for breaking the law requires law-upholders to ultimately break the law...

Those who, while in the line of duty legally administering the eye for an eye law, are exempt at such time.

...
And I think with there being soooo many kinds of crimes affecting soooo many kinds of people, at some points it wouldn't be possible to use an eye-for-an-eye philosophy.

That's why I say a just law should be able to consider circumstances.

I suppose thats why standard punishments (jail sentences) are used in all crimes unless circumstances deem it unnecessary.

Pretty much. That is what the powers that be have determined to be just. You and I may legitimately disagree on any aspect of the law or punishment. What I consider just you may consider barbaric. What you consider barbaric I may consider too lenient, and on and on and back and forth until we reach some consensus.

[JoshB]

Hm...I seem to be agreeing with everything you say...I think we have reached an argreement on ideal justice...but...

Why do you think our judicial system doesnt use this eye-for-an-eye philosophy? Would it violate the 8th amendment?