I believe
it is good to be a just person, for more reason than simply avoiding the
penalties of being unjust. It is all
well and good to claim that people behave justly for fear of being caught and
punished for wrongdoings; though I believe that one should be just regardless
of the consequences of the opposite.
Surely it is more beneficial to all if everyone is to be just
always. If there were little injustice
caused by the acts of others, it would eliminate the further unjust acts of
what people consider “deserved retaliation.”
Let us
assume for a moment that there is a situation in which you could do something
terribly unjust without fear of being caught.
For example, let us say while walking around through Chinatown, I found
a pair of glasses in my exact prescription.
They have allowed me to convince whomever I am speaking to that they
should believe what I tell them, agree with whatever I say or act as I urge
them to. While I am arguing with my
best friend about Nietzsche, she yields to my beliefs for the first time in our
adult lives. In an attempt to look more
intellectual in her eyes, I pull the glasses off and nibble on one of the
bows. I find that as soon as I remove
the glasses, she returns to disagreeing with my point of view. Once I put them back on, she agrees
again. Later, I drive fifteen miles
over the speed limit in a reduced-speed school zone and I am able to convince
the police officer that pulls me over that I do not deserve a ticket for it, so
long as I am wearing the glasses. I
take them off momentarily, to test the waters (Is he just daft or would he
actually write me a ticket for speeding were it not for the glasses?) and he
begins to write the ticket. I could get
away with almost anything, could I not?
Even if I had no fear of repercussion from the law that binds us to our
honour to behave justly (because I could conceivably convince anyone who
opposes me that what I am doing is right), I still would not use the glasses to
participate in the actions that I have just described, because I see it to be
the ultimate injustice.
But what
is it to act justly or unjustly? Plato
places justice amongst the finest goods.
Justice, to Plato, is good for its own sake. Both for what it is and for the happiness of what comes of
it. To Plato, justice is not the
onerous good that society at the time saw it to be. Even as it could be clearly seen that one could lead an unjust
life but have the reputation for being just and reap many rewards for it,
despite their behaviour. The just man could
be seen as unjust and be tormented for it.
(This also seemed to be governed by how much money and influence your
family had.) Thomas Hobbes believes
being just is only beneficial to a person if everyone would choose the
same. He believes in the State of
Nature. A sort of “every man for
himself” belief that touts that every person should do what is best for him or
her, regardless of it being what our society sees as cruel or unjust. If it would benefit you to kill your
neighbour for his possessions, then according to Hobbes, you should do it. Only if it is for the benefit of all to
uphold a civilized society where justice is prevalent should it be so (and he
does believe it to be beneficial). If
there is no justice then men are at war with themselves, which benefits no
one. It is by far better for all to
abide by laws and other such rules of society than for such a state of war to
be in place. For all of mankind to enter
into a pact that assures us the rights to freedom from oppression, theft, and
murder, the right to live free lives is good for all. Though we give up the right to act entirely in our own
self-interest (i.e. by killing my neighbour because I think he has a wicked
stereo system and I would like to have it) we gain much more by gaining the
protection not to be wronged by others.
Although, according to Hobbes, the only thing keeping this pact is that
if one is to break it, they face consequences.
Even then, Hobbes would argue that once it is no longer beneficial to a
person to keep this pact and that one should act in his or her own
self-interest. Every man should do
everything in his own power to preserve himself and his quality of life. While I agree that this in itself is
fundamentally good for each person individually, I believe in the greater
good. The needs of the many far
outweigh the needs of the few, or one.
I find I agree somewhat more with Plato’s views of justice than Thomas
Hobbes. I believe in the notion that
behaving justly for its own sake is good in and of itself and that it is most
certainly its own reward. Certainly I
could behave unjustly and for my own benefit, but what good does that really do
me? If I wrong my friends to further my
own self-interest, my friends will not trust me, or they will wrong me as well. While this may look to be that if the
consequences were removed, I would be inclined to act differently, I say I
would not. I am a firm believer in
“what goes around comes around,” Karma or perhaps what someone would call
“divine retribution.” If a person
behaves justly, they will benefit from it in the long run, as is my
belief.
I offer
the following, second example for my argument.
I could really use a bike. My
friend Mary has just gotten a new bike for herself and still has her old one,
which she does not use anymore. It is
not as though the old bike is benefiting Mary in any way and she complains that
it is just taking up space in her garage.
It obviously would do more good for me than her to have this bike that I
could use to get around town and between classes more easily. I do not have the money to buy Mary’s bike
from her, being a poor university student, and she will not simply give the
bike to me in an act of benevolence.
Mary paid her hard-earned money for her bike at one time and though she
does not use it at the time being, and possibly may never use it again ever, it
would be unfair of me to simply receive the bike and pay nothing in return for
it. I could steal the bike for myself
and not only would I get the use of the bike, Mary would get space in her
garage! Mary, being my friend, would be
disappointed, but would not press charges for it. So, in theory, I could steal this bike and not face any consequences
for it. I believe Hobbes would say that
it would be encouraging me to steal this bike if there is nothing in place to
punish my unjust act. Plato would say
that acting justly in the situation is more rewarding than the immediate
benefits of stealing and using the bicycle for transportation. Those of us who act justly as Plato tells it
will receive favour with the Gods.
Clearly we do not have this belief in the same Gods that Plato did and
even some disbelieve in a God all together, but the principle should still
stand. We will find favour in others if
we act justly, not just whatever divine being we choose to believe in. I tie my beliefs closely to Plato’s own, and
this is why I find his view on ethics far more persuasive.
Hobbes,
Thomas. “Leviathan, Part I, Chapters XIII-XV.” 1651. Reason and Responsibility.
12th ed. Eds. Joel Feinberg, Russ Shafer-Landau. Belmont:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning: 2005. 541-554.
Plato.
"The Immoralist’s Challenge." 357A-367E. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. Reason
and Responsibility. 12th ed. Eds. Joel Feinberg, Russ
Shafer-Landau. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning: 2005. 496-502.