. . . . . . Shoot and go.: November 2008

*For posterity's sake, I decided to post the longest paper I've made so far (and should I add, my best paper so far). If I make good papers like this, my academic life would be much easier and much fun as well, and add that with Extracurriculars, Eye Candies, Photography, and Writing, and that'll make my life colorful.

______________________________________________________________

Justice in the City of Humans: Pointing out the human’s misinterpretations of justice as presented by Plato’s The Republic

Leonardo T. Guison IV II AB PoS

“Indeed, without justice, what are kingdoms but great robberies?”

-St. Augustine, The City of God

Simply speaking, justice is an important element in our society as it balances out the possible “robberies”, of both small and big, that can occur in our state and to the individuals of the state. But first things first, what does justice really mean? Quoting from the New American Oxford Dictionary, justice is defined as 1) just behavior and treatment; 2) the quality of being fair and reasonable; 3) the administration of the law or the authority in maintaining this. In simple terms, justice is the reason that we are able to avoid chaos to happen in our society and uphold goodness to the human soul. And yet, such definition can not be accepted in a society where people fall for the wrong notions of the true definition of justice. Such definition, in fact, is not sufficient in an unjust society that humans live in.

As how the word justice is described in lay man’s terms, the word justice in reality is more than what is defined in the dictionary. Behind the seemingly simple word lies a complex sets of ideas and thoughts that makes justice relevant to the unjust and unequal society we all live at. What really bothers me with The Republic’s definition and description of justice is that concepts presented to us are very hard to apply such definitions in an unjust society that we all of us humans live now. The ideas presented about justice would only apply to Plato’s “ideal state”, likened to St. Augustine’s “City of God” which, in reality, would never exist, since we all live in “the city of humans [3]”. The problem with this is that first we are not living in the ideal state that Plato is referring to, and second , with unjust acts like lying and stealing being a human’s means of making life easier, there are yet still some points that have to be redefined so that the definition of justice would better fit in the unjust society of mankind, so that the concept of justice becomes more applicable realistically. Yet, with St. Augustine’s stand about justice, this does not necessarily mean that justice can only apply in St. Augustine’s “City of God”, and that it can never be applied to the unjust society that human being live in. For me, it is still possible to exemplify justice in this unjust state. What is needed is the people’s proper understanding and interpretation of what is justice all about. In this society that is bombarded by unjust acts committed by humans to other humans, a redefinition of justice is needed to promote justice in this unjust state that humans are living in.

With this paper, I want to prove that justice is not just a matter of doing what is just or being fair to the other part or just simply “giving back what you have borrowed”. I want to show that justice is more than what the dictionary defines justice, where in I would interpret justice as a means of attaining equality in society and therefore attaining the state of good. On the contrary, that people tend misinterpret the concept of justice, as they think of justice as a means of being more powerful and dominating due to the human’s natural desire for power, which is the very reason why justice is very hard to attain in a city controlled by humans.

In addition, this paper focuses on the three primary points regarding justice that appears to be blurry or misunderstood by the society, namely 1) The question of whether justice or injustice reigns supreme, 2) The distinction(s) between the justice of the state and the justice of the individual, and 3) On how justice is made for everyone and not for the supposedly “ the stronger or the noble”, as Thrasymachus has argued with Socrates in The Republic.

I want to clarify, however, that I am not saying that justice is not possible in the current unjust, unequal state that humans all live in but instead I want to give more emphasis on why applying the concepts of justice is a complicated matter in the city of humans. As what St. Augustine said, “for the man who lives according to God, and not according to man, ought to be a lover of good, and therefore, a hater of evil.”

As defined in Plato’s The Republic, justice is a state of goodness that is attained in his ideal city. Yet his straightforward definition of has lead to many arguments that makes the concept much broader, and thus, leading to dangerous misinterpretations which could possibly cause chaos in the state.

The government is unjust and unfair

In our present government today many people cry for being act upon unjustly, leaving the unjust people with a clean slate and thus, punishing the just. The real problem that bothers me here is that with this kind of “blurry” justice that Filipino citizens are all having now, the Filipino’s perception of justice will soon come to a point where people would be making unjust acts instead as a means of avoiding the bad consequences and having the “good” life (White 1979, 76-77).

Such problem is seen with the various corrupt acts our government official have been doing these days, where our judiciary sector fail to catch these unjust government officials and instead punishing the undeserving just people in the process. What is happening here is that people in our democratic system fall for Thrasymachus’ argument that practicing injustice would reap better benefits than practicing justice itself. Such idea would become a fatal idea since not just people fail to realize that what they are doing is wrong, but what will happen is that if not addressed, there will come a time where people would be doing these unjust acts to live life easier, thus distorting the nature of the state, eventually leading to chaos.

In our perspective of justice in the Philippine society, it is also noticeable that justice has become something that has been exclusive to the rich, evident to how the poor and the less powerful, known as the masa, cry out loud as they have been already deprived of the justice they should deserve, which is explicitly defined with the endless number of unresolved extrajudicial killings that are happening recently, wherein the judiciary would take a long time, or worse not solve the case, of these journalists who are killed. With unresolved cases like the abduction of Jonas Burgos in 2007, the deaths of journalists Mark Palacios, Fernando Batul, George Vigo, Marlene Garcia-Esperat, And Philip Agustin [5], among a few, this presents the painful reality that the masses, the lower 92% of the population [4], experience, as their deaths were not given proper justice. since they do not hold the power the upper 8% of the population have, attaining justice has become a impossible task for the masa.

On the other hand, among the 88.57 million Filipinos living, the country’s top 8% rich people, comprising of 7.08 million Filipinos out of the 88.57 million Filipinos[4] still continue to enjoy their lives as they inflict acts of injustice to the masa and among the big cases involving such is with the Lopez Family, who were recently accused of monopolization of basic needs like electricity and water and overpricing them. And yet, with all the evidences against them, they are even acquitted by court by the family’s means of bribing the judge with large sums of money, an act that the ordinary masa can not do. More than that, the rich even have their cases solved faster than the cases of the poor, despite the difficulty and complexity of the cases of the rich, where among the cases accused to them are the likes of plunder and murder, as compared to the poor, where among the crimes accused to them are the likes of robbery and vandalism.

What happens then is that as the rich do their dirty acts and still come out of the judicial court without any evidence of guilt, while the masa, who do the just acts, get accused by the judiciary branch of our government. And to make things much worse the rich makes attempts to exemplify justice through doing things that would benefit themselves and harming the masa in the process. The thing about justice being a state of goodness attained is that not all just actions would lead to true justice. I like to further emphasize that within the concept of justice, there are various factors affecting the validity of what is just and what is unjust.

Although Plato defines, at one point, justice as the exemplification of the virtues in its immediate state, his statement for me seems to be problematic as Plato fails to mention in his argument the virtues the border line of what is the immediate and what are the extremes of the virtues. The problem of not identifying the line between excess and deficiency is that people would be confused on whether they have fully exemplified the virtue or the are deficient in such virtue.

In order for humans to exemplify such virtues in an intermediate manner, and not of excessiveness, they would probably be living not in a city of humans, but in a city of God instead, where goodness is attained at its best, as St. Augustine would put it.

Yet, it is still possible to attain justice even if humans do not live in a city of God. It may sound unrealistic and too idealistic, in the words of St. Augustine, but through exploring about related concepts it can be seen that justice is still attainable in the unjust society. Justice will always exist in our society; it is just a matter of how humans would interpret and understand the concepts of justice being presented to us in Plato’s book The Republic that the human soul will be able to make proper use of justice

A brief flashback . . .

Among the arguments made in Plato’s The Republic is that in a state where humans live in, acting unjust is better rather than being just, as pointed out by Thrasymachus.

In book one of The Republic, Thrasymachus argues with Socrates that speaking in terms of justice, it is better to practice injustice rather than to practice justice itself. Here Thrasymachus proves to Socrates that through performing complete injustice, here being compared to complete justice, is beneficial to the human person as complete injustice in society would be good enough for the man to avoid the bad consequences.

Thrasymchus’ statement with regards to justice tells us that in a unjust society that the human being lives in, it would be better to be unjust than to be just since being unjust would fit better in our society. His explanation of being unjust as a means of being able to avoid the bad consequences can be interpreted as being unjust, contrary to being just, becomes a tool for humans to life life easier through these unjust acts. Quoting from what Thrasymachus said:

“And each ruling group sets down laws for its own advantage . . . And they declare that what they have set down - their own advantage - is just for the ruled, and the man who departs from it they punish as a breaker of the law and a doer of unjust deeds. . . . so the man who reasons roughly conclude that everywhere justice is the same thing, the advantage of the stronger.” (338e-339a)

In addition, Thrasymachus also argued that the principle behind people committing injustice instead of justice is that injustice brings in more benefits than justice, where it has become a normal occurence in the “city of humans” that people would fall for committing injustice rather than committing justice. With such statement in mind, he elaborates his argument further with Socrates, stating that “the just man everywhere has less than the unjust man” (343d), and elaborates on injustice, stating that “the unjust is what is profitable and advantageous for oneself (344c). What this is pointing out is that it is preferable to do injustice rather than justice, as what Socrates is pointing out, as injustice is much easier to do than justice and hence, it gives out more benefits than what the just has (343d). Yet, Socrates refutes Thrasymachus’ argument, stating that “the just man ha revealed himself to us as good and wise, and the unjust man unlearned and bad.” (350c)

In book two of The Republic, Glaucon gets furious at Socrates’ argument, and supports Thrasymachus’ argument, stating that the acts of injustice is good for the person possessing them and that acts of justice is bad for the person possessing it. In addition, he adds to his speech that the harm of being unjustly treated is much stronger than the benefits gained from treating others unjustly. The idea of justice and injustice is not concretely right nor is it concretely wrong. With Glaucon’s speech in mind, it is telling to us that ideally speaking, the just reaps more benefits on the long run than the unjust, which reaps benefits to the human person, but only on the short run.

Such statement is true to the city of humans since the harm of being unjustly treated becomes greater than the person who does the injustice since the one who is harmed loses a portion of his human dignity, morality, and values while the one who inflicts the harms gains these things from the person. In effect, the unjust person grabs a portion of what the just person has in possession. With this, the arguments of Glaucon and Thrasymachus on how injustice reigns over justice become well clarified to how humans think of justice.

Glaucon’s speech stating that injustice is preferable over justice is problematic since in The Republic, the ideal state is defined as being equal and good. By following Glaucon’s speech, it is like saying that it is better to be unfair to the other party since Glaucon wants to point out that doing such will be to the advantage of the unjust, thus making injustice exist in society. The existence of injustice in our society is rooted upon the excess in following the virtues, described in detail in book four of The Republic.

Upon defining the virtues in book four, each virtue has a relation to society (Hall 1981, 57) such that if the state exemplifies these virtues it is therefore “wise and well counseled”. Yet Hall also interprets book four of The Republic that with these virtues, it is important to exemplify them in moderation or in an immediate stage, and not on excess nor deficiency of the virtue (1981, 57-59).

As justice has been regarded as one of the central political virtues in the ideal republic (Lucas 1972, 229), it is the human person’s responsibility to understand the scope and limitations of justice, and clarify blurry points that were presented with its definition and argument on The Republic. In fact,many writers and critics who have analyzed The Republic have spotted inconsistencies with the argument on justice.

Round 1: For the noble?

The first blurry point on justice is seen when Thrasymahus and Glaucon argue that justice is something that is for the noble and not for everyone, thus, making it a “privilege”. It becomes a wrong notion with regards to justice as Socrates did not define justice as for the noble only but he only says that justice is “the act of goodness” (Krause 2004).

Annas explains this by stating that Thrasymachus has said such because of his belief that justice is nothing but obeying the laws (1991, 36). And since laws are made by those in power, Thrasymachus points out, through his argument, that justice, a being for the noble and the powerful, becomes a tool for the stronger to control the state and the people under the state.

Being used as an indication for the nature of politics, Wallach explains that when Polemarchus points out that the techne of justice is within the concept of politics, it becomes an advantage of the established government, as Thrasymachus explains it when he meant that justice is for the stronger. Yet Wallach points out that “it does not simply exemplify institutional arguments for justice” (2001, 241). What happens if Thrasymachus’ argument was followed is that the institutions are reduced to the value of exercising power, wherein instead of using justice in its proper way, it instead becomes a tool of institutionalizing power, which does not lead to justice but to injustice which is bad for the state (Wallach 2001, 240-241)

Supplementing Wallach’s argument, Shorey rejects Thrasymachus’ argument by stating that “the stronger are not infallible and may command what is really for their disadvantage” (1968, 211). In relation on the argument of the just against the unjust, Shorey’s response to Thrasymachus’ argument points out that although it has been argued in The Republic that as the rulers make their rules and sets down their laws for their advantage, it actually becomes disadvantageous to the stronger when not used properly since by inflicting great injustice to the less noble would eventually lead to the rebellion of the less noble, thus causing the fall of the noble.

Contradicting Socrates when he points out that justice is “the act of goodness”, Krause states that the main problem of justice is that through socialization, there this tendency that the individual would associate justice with the noble and the rich (Krause 2004). I would agree to such argument especially if you are speaking of the current situation of a state, like the Philippines in particular, where it is notable that although there have been “improvements” already, only the rich, noble 10% of the population is actually benefitting from it [1].

In analyzing about justice as being for the stronger in Thrasymachus’ perspective, Despland interprets this argument as Thrasymachus’ “superior” man must be able to persuade the rest of mankind that he has the interests of all at heart (1985, 142). With Despland’s interpretation, it can be said that in order for justice to be defined as “for the stronger”, it should therefore be of superior authority such as Thrasymachus points out that justice, for him , rests on authoritative people such as the president.

Yet it cannot be the powerful to have justice in his hands all of the time. Annas points out that since the authoritative is also human, it is therefore understood that humans have a tendency to make mistakes, and thus concluding that justice would not necessarily rest on the stronger or the noble (1991, 40-41) emphasizing that justice indeed is for everyone..

In relation to the second case of my argument, Lycos criticizes Thrasymachus as being a great strategist who thinks of the ruler’s power for his personal advantage, and not for the advantage of the state. Quoting from Lycos:

“He [Thrasymachus] is a great strategist, supremely clever at determining the sort of legislation, which will curb the graft and greed of other citizens without affecting his on ability to benefit enormously. . . . the exercise of reason and intelligence is directed at securing the ruler’s self-interest.” (1987, 111)

As the noble use it for their own good, they therefore commit injustice instead of justice as it becomes more of an abuse of power. With the noble’s abuse of power, what happens is that people in the society will think that injustice is better than doing justice, which is not the case in Plato’s concepts of justice, as explained in my next point.

Round 2: Just vs. unjust

Among the three arguments I am going to discuss with this paper, the argument on whether unjust acts reigns over just acts is one of the most misunderstood statements. Going back from Thasymachus’ argument, he points out that injustice reaps greater benefits than justice. Hence, with such argument, people living in the “city of humans” would dangerously misinterpret this statement, causing human beings falling for committing injustice rather than justice. Yet, I would reject Thrasymachus’ principle on the just and the unjust.

Unlike justice, injustice acts like a wolf in sheep’s clothing as it attempts to give benefits to the human person at first, making the human avoid the “bad consequences”, but it is indeed naturally evil and hence, unjust acts will overtime reveal to society and once society see this, consequences will be given to the unjust man. Justice, on the other hand, may not give its benefits at first, unlike injustice, but it is good on the long run as justice gives more meaningful and significant benefits on the long run (White 1979, 76-77).

The problem with this argument on whether injustice is better than justice is the fact that humans usually perceive injustice better than justice as it provides more benefits. Quoting from Mara, “since injustice is likely to provide more of these, goods than justice, strongly motivated persons would perfer to be unjust.” (1983, 598-599)

Dahl also rejects Thrasymachus’ claim of injustice being supreme over justice as giving emphasis on the human’s “appetite” for injustice. Dahl’s Plato’s Defense of Justice writes that “ a thoroughly unjust person is least free of all human beings because he is a slave to the worst part of himself, his appetite.” (811). I agree with Dahl’s argument as committing injustice can be likened to taking drugs; once you take it, it is hard to stop the habit. Like in injustice, once a person has made an attempt in committing injustice, it would therefore be difficult for the person to avoid committing injustice and commit justice instead because of his “appetite” for injustice. And with this appetite, his exemplification of complete injustice would eventually lead him not with a better life but with chaos. Likewise, if a person develops this certain “appetite” for committing justice, it will eventually become a habit for the person to commit justice and eventually, attain the state of goodness that Aristotle describes in defining justice.

Supplementing Dahl’s argument is Shorey’s point that “injustice is a principle of weakness dissension and justice is a source of strength” (1968, 214). With this point in mind, it is understood that it is not justice which is the less superior of the two but it is instead injustice that is proven to be less superior. In this case, justice becomes superior to injustice as justice gives the human person long-term benefits, contrary to injustice, which only gives short-term benefits to the human. In fact, Wallach said that unjust activities made by injustice brings confusion and bitter disagreement over fundamental issues to the human person, externally and internally, eventually causing disruption into the human soul (2001, 245). In the same thought, Kraut points out that “justice discounted by pain and dishonor is more advantageous than injustice supplemented by the rewards of justice (1992, 311). And therefore, justice should reign over injustice as justice, for Plato, is a way of attaining the good life.

Yet, the problem of which is the superior of the two is still not solved, but in fact, our perception of justice and injustice is distorted by our view and approach on freedom and liberty, which, most of the time, hinders the human from whether committing justice or injustice.

Quoting from Lucas’ discussion of how freedom is a hindrance to our understanding of justice and injustice:

“Liberty conflicts with justice, and often we make it easy for a man to escape the consequences of his acts rather than fetter his freedom enough to ensure that his crimes will always come home to roost. But once having established the liberties of the subject, it would be unjust for us to deny them to a particular individual: no canon of justice prohibits us from requiring a man to give evidence in his own case; but if for the sake of liberty we lay it down that nobody may be put to the question unwillingly, it then becomes a miscarriage of justice if a man on trial is forced to answer questions on oath.” (1972, 241)

Bearing that in mind, Lucas challenges Aristotle’s concept of a ideal republic through the concept of liberty as a hindrance to justice. Liberty, which is usually associated with political systems such as that of democracy, conflicts with justice for the reason that with liberty it would be difficult to control both justice and injustice. Difficult to control in a sense that as people are liberal with their actions, this freedom eventually becomes abused by the human through using the freedom for acts of injustice, which has been the case even with our current Democratic Government [1].

In connection to liberty, having too much liberty and freedom would lead to lack of restraint, wherein in the case of the unjust person, described here as the tyrant, abuses the “power and eroticism”. The tyrant’s abuse of the supposedly benefits gained from committing injustice would prevent him from restraint, and this abuse would lead to a “devastating psychological toll” since there will come a point wherein satisfying the power and erotism the tyrant demands would be impossible to attain, and hence, creating chaos into the unjust man (Kraut 1992, 325).

Round 3: Communal vs. individual

The idea behind this is that knowing the meaning of justice would mean exploring what is justice for the state and from there on the justice for the individuals of the state can be explored as well (White 1979, 14). In addition, it is elaborated further that such explanation is made for justice since individual justice and communal justice are both distinct from each other.

First, individual justice is basically defined as giving the individual what is due to him (Lucas 1972, 229), and it is also defined as the act of “minding your own business”(Nettleship 1962, 151). in addition, individual justice is also defined as the harmonious flow of his soul (Annas 1991, 132) With this in mind, this tells us that individual justice is basically giving what the individual deserves truthfully. And when harmonious flow of the human soul is mentioned, it refers to the proper exemplification of the virtues Socrates has mentioned in book 4.

Communal justice, on the other hand, speaks of the “common good” and the welfare of the state (Nettleship 1962, 146). This would mean considering not just for the welfare of a person, as defined in individual justice, but it puts in consideration for the welfare of the community, whether it may benefit or harm the individual or group of individuals of that state. in addition, state justice can only be seen once it recognizes the natural differences between people (Annas 1991, 118). Through the recognition of the natural differences of people it would be easier to develop the concept of “what is good for the state”, or “what common perception of justice do the people of that state share?” Also, through this affirmation of differences, state justice in one way or another, complements individual justice as through communal justice unity is attained by the state.

Before pushing through with my argument on communal and individual justice, I would like to elaborate on the difference between welfare and common good, which was not well defined by Annas and Nettleship. When welfare is mentioned it means for the good of the state in general, without what the individuals of that state think is good. Common good, on the other hand, is speaking of what is common with the individuals of that state when they think of what is good for them. Common good, in short, speaks of what is good for the state, based on what the individuals of that state think is good.

With the mention of justice as simply “minding one’s own business”, (Nettleship 1962, 151) such statement becomes hazy at one point because it deviates our sense of justice as being worried about our own selves, wherein philosophy points out that man can never be alone. Minding one’s own business, as stated in The Republic and in Nettleship’s analysis, such argument becomes a fallacious concept of justice because it contradicts the fact that interaction with others is very important to man. It also becomes fallacious since if justice is defined as a means of “doing good”, how can a human person do good if he can not do acts of good and just to other people as well, especially since the human has a natural desire for interaction with other humans as well?

In asking which type of justice is easier to understand, Hall writes that “because the state is larger of the two, it may be easier to find the justice of the state and then apply its results to the justice of the individual.” (1981, 55). With such idea in mind, it would work ideally as by knowing what is justice for the state through knowing what is for the welfare and the “common good” for the community then what would be the individual’s (of that community) sense of justice can be determined as well.

On the contrary, Hart quotes from Del Vecchio, explaining that it is important to address the needs and what is due of the individual before searching for what is state justice (Hart 1953, 350). in Hart’s perspective, his idea about “justice being complex” (1953, 351) best defines on differentiating justice in the state with justice for the individual, since in order to fully understand justice one must be able to differentiate what is state justice and what is individual justice as these two types are distinctively different in nature, as defined by Socrates in The Republic.

In addition, being asked whether state justice or individual justice is more important, Lucas provides with an answer, stating that justice is concerned with the individual, but only with certain cases (1972, 229). With this in mind, Lucas tries to point out that although individual justice is more concerned over state justice, it does have certain limitations. Among one of its limitations has been mentioned in The Republic, where Socrates asks Thrasymachus when Thrasymachus makes an argument with justice as “giving what is due to the other” if the individual should give back the knife of the other individual if that other individual has gone crazy already.

With this, I agree with such a statement as with the concept of justice, that there should be equal treatment between justice for the state and justice for the individual. Lucas’ emphasis on the concern for individual justice with limitations means that it can not be like exemplify individual justice all the way or exemplify communal justice all the way; there should be a balanced exemplification of the two.

Yet by stating balance therefore, communal justice and individual justice is defined as basically having the same very form of justice or eidos (Annas 1991, 148). With this in mind, it can therefore be said that both communal justice and individual justice, although sounding different in definition, still share the same objective, and that is to uplift a state of goodness to both the human person and to the state.

Although both individual and communal share the objective of bringing goodness, Stauffer explains that the exemplification of justice has certain limitations, hence, giving out a point that you wouldn’t be needing justice always (2001, 33). This means that there are yet certain cases where you can not exemplify the principle of justice, whether it is communal or individual, since as what Socrates said, justice is not needed when it is not demanded by the individual or the state (332e), yet it can be used in certain cases such as in farming, in peacetime, and in shoemaking, among others. The point of Stauffer here is that since every situation is different, the application of justice would also vary (2001, 33-34)

Case Study: The lamb failed to tame the lion

With these thoughts and arguments with regards to the misinterpreted points about justice, these concepts appear in the modern film entitled “Lions for Lambs”. In the film, it clearly presents a dilemma on whether the United States should go on with declaring war with Afghanistan or not. With this dilemma, two sets of characters debate around with this issue, namely the student and the professor and the senator and the journalist.

Lions for Lambs is a perfect film since it was able to present to its audience the three primary elements of justice that humans tend to misunderstand. It becomes effective in presenting the three conflicts of justice discussed in this paper through the central issue of the film which is about the deliberation on waging war against Afghanistan, the enemy of the United States being presented in the film.

The central point of debate, which was made by senator Jasper Irving and the probing TV journalist, is the debate of whether should America declare war on Afghanistan or not. In this heated argument, the reporter justifies that declaring war against Afghanistan will do no good but only harm the American citizens, but the Senator on the other hand refused to agree to the argument, stating that the reason that the wart should push through is that Afghanistan has been a home to terrorists who have failed in an attempt to make the United States unstable through bombings .[2]

In relation to the debate between the Senator and the TV reporter, students of Dr. Malley, namely Arian and Ernest, join the battle for Afghanistan for they believe in Dr. Malley’s idealistic approach of waging war and participating in the war so that as citizens of the United States they could make an important contribution to the American society. In the scene where they are already in the battlefield, they have a sense of regret as they fail to realize the consequences of waging war, which is the odds of surviving the war and the very high risk of not being able to go home to be with their loved ones once again.

In the helicopter scene, the hesitation of the soldiers inside to get out of the helicopter to ambush the Afghans presents to the audience the soldiers questioning the concept of justice. In this scene, the soldiers are questioning on whether it would be right to do unjust acts to the Afghans for the benefit of the state or if they would refuse to go down to the helicopter, thus not pushing through with the war.

Going back to the idealistic professor, what makes Dr. Malley’s approach a problem with regards to justice is the very fact that he has lost his sense of what communal justice is, and that is, justice for the common good of the community, which is the United States in this case. Going back to the definition of communal justice, it has been defined in my argument that with communal justice there is also a play of individual justice, and without individual justice, communal justice would not exist of if it existed, it would simply result into chaos as people will lose their proper interpretation of justice if only communal justice is the type of justice only concerned. In fact, Lucas has elaborated that individual justice should be prioritized over communal justice, and not communal justice prioritized over individual justice.

In Dr. Malley’s idea of persuading the American citizens, in this case the students, to participate in the war and make a contribution to the state, it would seem at first a just act but it is overall it is an unjust act. It becomes an unjust act because the Professor, like the Senator, only considered what is apparently good for the state and fails to consider what is good for the people of the state. In short, the central idea of waging war against the Afghans fail to address the common good of not just the state, but the people who are under that state. What makes Dr. Malley’s stand on waging war against the Afghans problematic is the fact that their is no sense of individual justice in his decision; he was too concerned about the overall welfare of the country without putting in consideration the welfare of the individuals of the country. Just as what Lucas said, the individual is always the priority over the state when it comes to a life-or-death decision making situation.

The same problem arises from the heated debate between Senator Jasper Irving and the probing TV reporter, where Irving gives a surprising news to the TV reporter, which is to push through with declaring war to Afghanistan and to bomb them down. Although the TV reporter makes an attempt to convince the Senator to not go on with the declaration, but the Senator was too stubborn not to listen to her. In this scene, the misconception of justice as being for the stronger is presented as being a typical norm for the human soul, given its desire for power. Since Jasper Irving is superior to authority than the TV reporter, what happens is that instead of finding other means of convincing the Senator to change his mind, the TV reporter instead complied with the decision of the Senator, hence, bowing down to his authority even if the Senator’s decision to declare war on Afghanistan would endanger the lives of the citizens of the United States.

Although the film had reference with the post-September 11 disaster, the decisions of the Senator, the Professor, and the two students who are in the battlefield, is not correct since first, the objective of battling the Afghans is for their own benefits only, and not for the common good of the state. Second, it becomes wrong in the sense that there is a play of injustice here; what happens is that the authority, which in this case is the government of the United States, control the people under him, in this case the professor and the students, to comply with their decision of waging war against their enemy, in this case the Afghans, for the benefits of the government, and not for the common good of the state.

The Final Laugh

These three essential points discussed in this paper presents the reality that talks about justice in the human society, that misunderstandings and misinterpretations of arguments presented in The Republic about justice. Because of such misunderstanding of The Republic, there is a failure of the proper application of justice in the human society, as Plato’s ideal society can never happen in a society that humans live in because of the imperfections of the human soul.

In order to address this problem, important points discussed in the republic was discussed in detail with a critique from well-known critics of the works of Plato. Through a thorough analysis of points and arguments presented in Plato’s The Republic, justice has been redefined so that its concepts would better fit in the human city.

The first point that was analyzed is the question of whether justice is exclusively for the noble and the stronger individual. Although Thrasymachus’ argument would refer to the government as the group that hold the power to implement laws, this has been clarified that it is not necessary that it is of exclusivity since even those in power have a tendency to use justice in a wrong manner, such that those in power would come to a point of abusing justice, thus committing injustice instead to the less powerful individuals of the state.

In the second point, it has been clarified that injustice is never superior nor better than justice. With Thrasymachus’ argument, of which a big majority of the people today follow, the notion of justice as doing good becomes deviated such that when it is defined that injustice reigns superior over justice, this translates to telling the human that doing evil is good for the soul, which becomes fallacious as Plato points out that the objective of justice is to live the good life by doing good, and not live the good life through doing unjust acts to others for selfish benefits.

As for the third point, it has been well clarified that although communal justice and individual justice are distinct from each other, both still have the same goal of attaining goodness for the state and the individual respectively. In addition, it has been also clarified that there should be a balance between the two, wherein the concept of common good exists. Common good is explained as what is good for the state, wherein what is the individual’s common notion of what is good to them is considered in determining what is overall good for the state. In addition, it has been pointed out that with individual justice and communal justice, they need not be exemplified all the time as there are cases that would demand individual justice more, or cases that would demand communal justice more, or cases that would demand the need of both forms of justice.

Culminating the discussion of these three points was made through the analysis of the central issue in the modern film, Lions for Lambs, which is the issue of the declaration of war of the United States to Afghanistan. The film was used as a case study for justice because it best represents the misinterpretations and wrong notions of humans with regards to justice. Through the film, the three points of discussion, which are justice for the stringer, just against unjust, and communal justice to individual justice, are presented through the characters of the students, the idealist professor, the Senator, and the probing TV reporter.

Going back to the argument about the misinterpretation of how justice is defined in The Republic, Plato’s concept of justice, although only applicable to his ideal state, can still be applied in the state of humans, where imperfections exist. Through redefining and clarifying important points about justice, I hope that such redefinition and restructuring of people’s notion of justice would be able to persuade people to live up the good life through doing good deeds, as how justice is concretely defined. Although the Philippines lives in a crisis of having injustice, this redefinition and clarification of justice aims to address the crisis, and thus stabilizing the Philippines into a just state.

Notes:

[1] I have derived these thoughts from the present situation of our country, where we are bombarded by problems such as corruption, money laundering, and other forms of great injustice. Among the problems our country is facing today are the unresolved extrajudicial killings, the overpricing of Meralco and monopolization of the Lopez family, and the question of the legitimacy of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as president of the Philippines.

[2}The bombings being referred here is the September 11, 2001 disaster where the World Trade Center has met its end as the twin towers was bombed by two planes and also the same day when the Pentagon was bombed and when the bombing attempt at the White House failed. The bombing was referred to Afghanistan, being the supposed hideout of terrorist Osama Bin Laden.

[3] These thoughts have been lifted from St. Augustine’s The City of God, which provided a critique of Plato’s The Republic.

[4] Data regarding this matter has been obtained from the recently concluded official population count of the National Statistics Office (NSO), of which the official report was released on April 16, 2008.

[5] This list of journalists killed is just a short list of the many people working in the media, and who are a part of the lower 92% of the population, as there are still many unresolved cases involving unidentifiable dead bodies found all around the Philippines.

Bibliography List:

Primary Source:

Bloom, Allen, trans., Plato’s The Republic. New York: Basic Books Publishing. 1968.

Secondary Sources:

From the Luis David, SJ Collection, Ateneo de Manila Rizal Library:

Annas, Julia. An Introduction to Plato’s Republic. New York: Oxford University Press. 1991.

Despland, Michel. The Education of Desire: Plato and the of Religion. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1985.

Hall, Robert. Plato. London: George Allen and Unwin publishers, Ltd. 1981.

Kraut, Richard. “The Defense of justice in Plato’s Republic.” In The Cambridge companion to Plato edited by Richard Kraut (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992.).

Lycos, Kimon. Plato on Justice and Power. New York: State University of New York Press. 1987.

Nettleship, Richard Lewis. Lectures on the Republic of Plato. New York: St. Martin’s press. 1962.

Shorey, Paul. What Plato Said. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1968.

Stauffer, Devin. Plato’s introduction to the question of justice. New York: State University of New York Press. 2001.

Wallach, John. The Platonic Political Art. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. 2001.

White, Nicolas. a companion to Plato’s Republic. Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company. 1979.

From the Internet via JSTOR:

Dahl, Norman. “Plato's Defense of Justice”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 51, No. 4, (Dec., 1991), pp. 809-834.

Hart, H. L. “Justice”. Philosophy, Vol. 28, No. 107, (Oct., 1953), pp. 348-352.

Krause, Sharon. “Hume and the (False) Luster of Justice”. Political Theory, Vol. 32, No. 5, (Oct., 2004), pp. 628-655.

Lucas, J. R. “Justice”. Philosophy, Vol. 47, No. 181, (Jul., 1972), pp. 229-248.

Mara, Gerald. “Politics and Action in Plato’s Republic.” The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 4, (Dec., 1983), pp. 596-618.

. . . . . . Shoot and go.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Stress.

Friday, November 28, 2008

Random thought of the week

The RH Bill debate IS ongoing . . .

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Oh Noes.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Mischief.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Only one.

Stepping up.

Reflection point: Redefining justice

Past Writings.

Of photographs and other rants.

Want to know more?