What is justice? This question seems to be at the heart of all of our discussions about Plato, however, I do not believe that this is the central question being argued in The Republic. The manner in which Socrates, his interlocutors and, indeed, our class use the term “justice” implies its definition. Justice is equitable with morality. Things that are “just” are “good”, just as things that are “moral” are “good”. Similarly, things that are “unjust” are “bad”, as things that are “immoral” are “bad”. The question we all (Socrates included) are asking is not “What is justice?” but “What is just?”. We are asking what constitutes “good” or “bad”.
As I have said many times in class, morality is subjective. Things I consider “good” or “right” or “moral” will inevitably differ from someone else’s concept of what morality entails. I, personally, have different moral boundaries than others, and their moral values hold no sway over mine. However, justice has, as Socrates pointed out, two components or scales: the individual, and society.
Societal justice must, necessarily, be treated as objective instead of subjective, and in order for me to explain why I believe this I feel obligated to first explain and define societal justice, and society itself.
As extraordinary as we human beings are, we are still organisms. We still exist in the same way that a wolf, or a gorilla, or any animal or plant exists. Our basic function in life is to perpetuate our species, for no organism exists without others like it; no organism lives entirely in solitude. In all of our grandeur I feel as though humanity has lost all sense of humility and all sense of what it means to be a species. As we are just a species of organisms like any other, we must not forget that evolution is the only inescapable aspect of life. Through our constant struggle to survive we are perpetually changing and adapting, and in understanding ourselves it is key to understand how it is we are most adept at survival. Some species are immensely large and powerful, like the buffalo or the elephant, and survive first and foremost by being able to fend off attack easily due to superior strength. Others are incredibly quick, like the rabbit or fox, who survive first and foremost by being able to either escape predators with their speed and agility or to catch prey with the same qualities. Still, others are adapted for survival in admirably different ways, such as the simple plants, who survive by being absolute in their indifference.
How are humans best adapted for survival? Well, as I see it, communication and cooperation are our first and foremost means of survival. Envision a human completely solitary. How is it adept at surviving? It is not particularly large nor is it particularly strong. The human stands no chance against a bear, or a lion, or any number of other animals, nor does the human seem equipped, by itself, to survive strong currents in a river or ocean, or to survive much bodily injury at all; many important organs are only protected by a thin layer of skin, fat, and lean, thin muscle.
The human does have the ability to run slowly for very long distances, but that is not very useful when its life is threatened, as it cannot run quickly to escape danger. However, humans have an ability that has, clearly, been highly advantageous to the survival and subsequent propagation of our species: our ability to complexly and effectively communicate with one another. Through communication we are able to coordinate large tasks that help fill the void left by our other, inferior characteristics. We can coordinate with one another to elaborately trap and kill prey to eat, and further coordinate with one another to ensure that the food is disseminated amongst the population so that each member of the species may thrive and then, moreover, help to coordinate the species’ survival. It is because of this remarkable faculty of communication that we have survived as a species for as long as we have. It is because communication is our best means of survival that we are constantly together; why we form the things we now term as “societies”. Society is, therefore, an evolutionary adaptation; society is our peculiar excellence.
If our interactions comprise our main mechanism of survival, and the most basic fundamental function of an organism is survival, then by what do we measure and control our interactions with one another, to ensure our survival by achieving some form of symbiotic mutualism? Morality. By terming certain decision as “good” or “bad”, we have made the concept of beneficial versus harmful more easily applicable to our method of survival: society. For example, no one would make a moral judgment on the decision to eat food. They would say that eating the aforementioned food is either beneficial or harmful to one’s health and, subsequently, their survival. Moral judgments are instead used to describe the beneficial or harmful nature of a social decision. People debate whether it is right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust, to make the decision to do things such as perform capital punishment or abortions, lie, cheat, or steal because all of these decisions are social decisions: they affect the interactions between humans. As communication and, thus, society are our primary adaptations for survival, and moral judgments are the way in which we determine the benefit and harm of certain interactions, then morality and, therefore, justice are also adaptations for survival.
Justice on the larger, societal scale functions exactly in the same way. It serves as a means of maintaining society, and therefore is a means of survival (adaptation). However, societal justice is more complex. Just as an individual’s concept of morality is personalized and objective only in context of him/herself, so must justice, within the greater context of a society, be personalized and objective in context of the society itself. Societal justice is the collective consensus on what moral values, what is considered good or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust, are to be upheld as common determinants of mutual benefit or harm. It must follow, then, that justice on both the individual and societal scale is humanity’s primary evolutionary adaptation.
Now, it may be easily pointed out that most societies today do not have any collective consensus on what moral values to uphold, and I have quite a bit to say about that topic and more, however I felt that it would be too long of a blog post if I incorporated those thoughts. So, I’ve decided to break this essay into multiple parts, and the next part that I post will be concerned with modern society and how I think it does and does not reflect what I’ve just blabbed on about for the past one thousand words.
