Justice is a crucial concept in political philosophy. Our three philosophers — Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero — seem to have different conceptions of the place of justice. But one of their approaches is best.

The three philosophers have different conceptions of justice. For Plato, he sees justice as the interest of the stronger party. The ruling class makes rules for the welfare of themselves. They make it clear what is right for the subjects is what is in the interest of the rulers, and anyone who goes against the law is punished. According to Plato, reason can rule all things. His theory of justice contrasts three concepts state government, soldiers, and peasants.

The basic principle implies functional specialization. In it, each part of the state performs its duties, is best suited to complete, and justice can be assured in society. This means non-interference. Only when no part of the state interferes with the sphere of duty of others, moreover, can a society benefit from the work of an entity only by doing so…

Socrates describes justice as the way people should be educated and how the ruler should rule in a well-governed city. He explains how the just person is usually happy than the unhappier person. Likewise, he says that it’s not the interest of the ruling party to make laws for their subjects. Rulers sometimes make mistakes and make rules in their best interest in their lives. Justice does not harm anyone, according to Socrates.

Cicero’s political thoughts on justice are grounded on the idea that we should not harm anyone unless provoked by wrongful acts. Besides this, he says taking someone else’s property is a violation of their human mutuality. The foe must be handled mercifully throughout the war. Cicero would cause the army to surrender unharmed even after the battering ram had touched the walls, which is more lenient than the typical Roman practice. Promises to the enemy must be held. Cicero completes his discussion of justice by noting that the obligations of justice are also applied to slaves.

Cicero returns to the duties of justice, building on his argument that they are the foundation of humanity’s transnational rule. Since the useful always clashes with the honorable man, he writes, we need a guideline. The law is never to use violence or robbery against any other human being to our benefit. This rule gives rise to the uniformly binding essence of the statute. Cicero says that it is ridiculous for us to abide by this principle when it involves our families or friends, but to deny that it extends to all relations between people.

Plato was Socratic in his conviction that information is righteousness, all by itself. This implies that to realize the great is to do the great, i.e., acknowledging the proper activity will prompt one to make the best decision; this suggested that temperance could be educated by showing somebody directly from off-base great from evil. Aristotle expressed that realizing what was correct was insufficient, that one needed to decide to act in the best possible way — fundamentally, to make the propensity for doing great. This definition put Aristotelian morals on a commonsense plane, instead of the hypothetical one upheld by Socrates and Plato.

For Socrates and Plato, wisdom is the fundamental virtue, and with it, one can unify all virtues into one whole. Aristotle believed that knowledge was virtuous, but attaining virtue was neither automatic nor did it grant any union acquiring of other virtues. In Aristotle’s view, wisdom was a goal accomplished only after effort, and unless an individual chose to think and act wisely, other virtues would have been achieved.

--

--

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store