Is justice a natural or artificial virtue? Is it in alignment with the Socratic view that it is natural and pure? Or is justice more aligned as an artificial virtue, being more selfish in regards to power of the governor? Thrasymachus served as a counter to Socrates in Plato’s Republic and shared the belief that justice more often serves those in power rather than the common citizen. Justice as a virtue is commonly praised in democratic nations but if it is always a pure notion, how does it come to be? Justice is created by the institutions in power. Socrates held the view that this justice will always naturally be serving of the people but has that thought always been the case? Through the course of history, justice’s nature itself has been changed and mended either for the benefit of the nation or for the benefit of individuals. I will discuss why justice is a virtue that may naturally come into place but has to be artificially mended by the people or the government in order to form a more perfect and more virtuous democracy.
Before going into the virutes of justice, justice’s characteristics must first be defined. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines just as “the administration of law” and/or “the quality of being just, impartial, or fair”. So, the definition of justice I will be utilizing in this paper will be the fair and impartial administration of law. Justice is the word many associate with karma and fairness in life, whether that be in regards to the government or vengeance, everyone seeks justice. Many democratic governments throughout history have been founded upon the virtues of justice and equality as they go hand in hand. It can even be found in the pledge of allegiance in the US, hence “liberty and justice for all”. The US government is very much influenced the by the same Athenian democratic government that sentenced Socrates to death. Socrates, a promoter of justice as natural, sentenced to death on false charges by the same system that promotes justice.
Socrates/Plato argue that justice will naturally serve the citizens. If rule is reasonable then it is justice. If a person seeks power for ulterior motives, then they are unjust, but if they are forced into it they seek only to benefit their subjects. Going into Socrates’ own experience with justice in the trial that claimed his life, he still held the belief that justice was for the benefit of citizens. He claimed that justice is a greater good than what can be commonly interpreted and injustice leads to conflict which naturally hinders the injustice itself. Justice leads to concord which leads to more effective justice.
Justice is artificially constructed by the governing branch for the benefit of the governing branch, Thrasymachus argues that justice is artificially made for the betterment of people who are in the power position in governments. Law, or justice, is more serving of the governor than the citizen. Justice is the advantage of the stronger party. For the governors, injustice is more rewarding than justice. Why would governors make laws to take power away from themselves?
Justice is dependent on a country’s history, culture, and current needs. Justice does not have a universal nature as it is highly dependent on situational context. What one culture deems justice, another may deem injustice. In the context of politics, the government does not always pass laws for the betterment of citizens. Many times, passed laws take away rights and privileges from citizens. Though the case can be made that those laws are passed for safety and other wellbeing of the people, there are blatant orders passed for the entire purpose of taking power away from the common citizen. For the conclusion, Justice is not always for the betterment of citizens, but more importantly justice is not so easily definable as natural or artificial and not all democracies are pure. All democracies have the capabilities of transforming into a more tyrannical state.