Justice: Philosophical Perspectives from Plato to Nozick
Justice: Philosophical Perspectives
Plato
In The Republic, Plato argues that a just society requires each individual to fulfill their assigned roles. He envisions an ideal state where education caters to individual talents, regardless of gender. Plato’s educational system involves:
- Music, gymnastics, mathematics, and geometry until age 30.
- Five years of dialectic study for those who excel.
- Fifteen years of civil and military service.
- At 50, those who pass prior stages contemplate the idea of good to govern the polis.
Plato identifies three classes:
- Rulers (philosophers): Possessing wisdom and prudence, they organize society and guide it towards the common good.
- Guardians: Selected for courage and strength, they defend the state. They share common property and live as a single family to prioritize the collective good.
- Producers: The largest class, they produce goods for the community. They have private property and families, but must provide for the guardians. Their virtue is temperance.
Social justice prevails when these groups live in harmony, each fulfilling their role without interfering with others.
Aristotle
Aristotle defines justice as the virtue of equality or equity, crucial for the state’s well-being. He advocates for individualized law application, using fairness and prudence, as rigid application can lead to injustice. Aristotle distinguishes:
- Universal Justice: Obedience to the law.
- Particular Justice: Encompassing:
- Distributive Justice: Distributing social goods based on merit and ability.
- Corrective Justice: Repairing harm, both voluntary and involuntary, through civil and criminal law.
- Commutative Justice: Governing business relationships. Individuals can waive rights (e.g., not claiming a price) but not duties (e.g., paying an agreed price).
Rawls
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls revisits social contract theory to address the tension between freedom and equality. He proposes a “veil of ignorance” where individuals, unaware of their social standing, natural gifts, or life plans, agree on principles of justice. This ensures a conception of justice based on social cooperation. Rawls’s two principles are:
- Equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with equal liberty for all.
- Inequalities are acceptable only if they benefit everyone, especially the least advantaged, and if related positions are open to all.
These principles arise from a hypothetical agreement under ideal conditions, establishing a democratic structure that guarantees basic liberties and accepts only fair inequalities.
Nozick
In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick critiques Rawls’s liberal-social model. He prioritizes individual rights above all else, limited only by the rights of others. He advocates for a “minimal state” focused solely on protecting rights, resolving conflicts, and enforcing contracts. Nozick rejects distributive justice as egalitarian prejudice, proposing instead “justice in holdings” based on:
- Original acquisition of unowned things.
- Transfer of holdings through free exchange.
Nozick acknowledges the potential conflict between unlimited property rights and the freedom of others, recognizing that a minimum level of property is essential for freedom, but unlimited freedom can infringe on others’ freedom.