166 justice
Russell, Frederick H. The Just War in the Middle Ages.Cam-
bridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
justice
A central concept in Western political theory, but one
that has been defined in various ways. Two main ways
of defining justiceare: (1) the harmonious and healthy
ordering of persons within the whole society; and (2)
the individual RIGHTSand benefits of each citizen in a
community. The first orientation of justice,exemplified
in CLASSICAL (especially PLATO) and MEDIEVAL (St.
Thomas AQUINAS) political thought, focuses on the jus-
tice of the entire nation or whole community and sub-
ordinates the individual’s interests to the common
good. The second, MODERNconception of justice(as in
John LOCKE, Karl MARX) emphasizes the individual’s
economic interests and benefits against the larger soci-
ety. Plato’s Republicgives the classic definition of jus-
ticeas “giving each person his due” or every individual
receiving what he or she “deserves.” For Plato, this
means having one’s innate abilities (to be a ruler or
soldier or worker) recognized, properly trained, and
used by society. From this “justice as deserts,” every
individual is fulfilled, everyone is in one’s proper
place, and the whole society is a harmonious, coopera-
tive unity. Thus, the emphasis in this Platonic defini-
tion of justiceis on a certain orderingof parts within
the whole, the individuals within a certain placewhere
each is needed, useful, and fulfilled (which is deter-
mined by others—parents, elders, rulers). This system
of justice subordinates individual preference to the
common good and requires wise rulers (PHILOSOPHER-
KINGS) to structure it. Such a holistic view of justice
continues in the Roman Empire (CICERO) in which
service to Rome (as senator, soldier, citizen) is consid-
ered noble and just. The CATHOLIC Middle Ages
employs this organic notion of justice in St. Thomas
Aquinas’s Summa Theologica,which combines CHRIS-
TIANand Aristotelian concepts of order and virtue. The
just realm is one ultimately ruled by God with each
social component (church, king, nobility, GUILDS, peas-
ants) in its “place,” working harmoniously together—
“God’s in his heaven, all’s right with the world.” This
medieval HIERARCHYis presented as natural and divine
(NATURAL LAW) and finds literary expression in Shake-
speare’s plays. Injustice,from this classical view, is a
society where individuals are notin their places, are
out of order, and everyone is considered equal and
capable of determining his or her individual destiny.
Plato depicts such injustice as a lower person (soldier,
child, woman) ruling over his or her “betters” or supe-
riors; it is “unjust” to treat a soldier like a businessman
or a ruler like a soldier. Shakespeare depicts this as a
peasant or rebellious-prince position in which the per-
son does not belong. Disaster results in such “unjust”
assertive individualistic behavior.
Modern, LIBERAL, and SOCIALIST definitions of
justicetake the individual and her or his economic
desires as the basis for justice. In this perspective, all
individuals are equal, self-determining, and deserving
of the same social benefits and conditions in society.
This makes DEMOCRACY the most just regime and
competition for social benefits the norm. CAPITALISM
promises the just reward of productive merit, and
COMMUNISMpromises the social justice of equal eco-
nomic benefits to all. Injustice, in this view, is any
inequality, discrimination, or unfair treatment of
anyone.
Most contemporary countries blend these Ancient
HIERARCHICAL and Modern EGALITARIAN notions of
the ideal state. John RAWLS’s Theory of Justice com-
bines these standards of justice by employing a Mod-
ern Lockean ideal of individual EQUALITY within a
society; equal opportunity with social differences and
responsibility provide a theory reflecting the U.S.’s
mixed regime of capitalist individualism and Judeo-
CHRISTIAN morality. Private business and religious
organizations allow considerable organic justice,
while LIBERAL social programs give equality to all.
Thus, traditional and Modern ideals of justice reside
within the same civilization in an uneasy balance
but with each tempering the excesses of the other.
Such a PLURALISMof values and systems of justice
produce confusion and controversy but, in MADI-
SON’s ideal constitutional REPUBLIC, prevent the worst
form of tyranny. Individuals, as in Robert NOZICK’s
Anarchy, State and Utopia,are free to choose a system
of justice, but a common standard eludes the entire
society.
Justice, then, is an evolving and complex concept
in political thought, but one which benefits from
knowledge of the past.Further Readings
Miller, D. Social Justice.Oxford, Eng.: Clarendon Press, 1976.
Pettit, P. Judging Justice.London: Routledge, 1980.
Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice.Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, 1971, 1972.