POLITICAL PHILOSOPHERS
SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THEIR
EYES
Ancient, Early Modern and Contemporary
thinkers
FOR CENTURIES, THE
DEFINITION OF JUSTICE HAS
BEEN DISPUTED OVER BY WISE
MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES
HAMMURABI (DIED C. 1750 BCE)
Hammurabi was the sixth king of the First
Babylonian dynasty -- from 1792 to 1750.
Hammurabi expanded the city-state of
Babylon along the Euphrates River.
Known in modern times as an ancient law-
giver.
By far the most remarkable of the
Hammurabi records is his code of laws, the
earliest-known example of a ruler
proclaiming publicly to his people an entire
body of laws, arranged in orderly groups.
HAMMURABI'S CODE
One of the first
written codes of
law in recorded history.
These laws were inscribed
on stone tablets (stelae)
standing over 2.4 meters
tall, found in Persia in 1901.
Today, the basalt monument
stands in the Louvre
Museum in Paris.
His code, a collection of 282
laws and standards,
stipulated rules for At the top is an engraved depiction of
commercial interactions and Hammurabi with the god of justice,
set fines and punishments Shamash. Below are columns of
to meet the requirements of inscription in the Akkadian language.
justice. The tablet has 16 columns of text on
the front and 28 on the back
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
It offers remarkable insights into the history of law,
and social justice.
The Code of Hammurabi is significant because its creation
allowed men, women, slaves, and all others to read and
understand the laws that governed their lives in Babylon.
It is unique in that laws of other civilizations were not written
down, and thus could be manipulated to suite the rulers that
dictated them.
The Code also includes a modern take on judicial procedures.
For example, when two parties had a dispute, legal protocol
allowed them to bring their case before a judge and provide
evidence and witnesses to back up their claims.
It also glorifies acts of peace. It symbolizes not only the
emergence of justice in the minds of men, but also man’s
rise above ignorance and barbarism toward the peaceful and
just societies still pursued today.
The Code is particularly just for its time.
WHAT DOES IT SAY?
The beginning of these laws has prayers chiefly cursing
whoever shall neglect or destroy the law.
About 100 of these laws concern matters of property
and commerce, including debt, interest and collateral.
For instance, if a dam broke and
subsequent flooding destroyed crops, the laws chalked it up
to the negligence of the dam's owner, who had to
compensate the farmers who lost crops.
laws also established certain standards and limits for loan
agreements to control an abuse of usury.
Lenders also had to finalize the contract in front of witnesses
and wait for harvest time before demanding repayment.
What's more, the code addresses the idea of a secured
loan (one backed by valuable collateral) as well. Property in
the form of land and houses -- or even wives and children --
could serve as collateral, too. Those in severe debt could
enter indentured servitude to pay it off.
WHAT DOES IT SAY?
Another set of approximately 100 laws concerns
family, marriage and children, inheritance,
adultery and incest.
What is interesting in the code sees the father,
as the head of the household. Until the child
married, the father had legal rights to use
children for labor for himself or his debtors.
Fathers could even choose to sell their children
off. Not only that, but were a child to strike a
father, the child's hands were cut off.
These last part states the matter of criminal
laws as well as the nature of punishment.
The code explicitly mentions about 28 crimes
that warrant death, including robbery,
adultery and casting spells.
Punishments often depended on the social
status of the perpetrator. When a member of
the elite committed a grievous crime against
a person of lower status, he or she may have
been asked to pay a fee. When the roles
were reversed, the lower-class criminal might
receive a harsher punishment.
AN EYE FOR AN EYE
The Hammurabi’s code included lex talionis (law
of retribution) . If one put out another's eye, he
or she would lose an eye. The same went for
teeth and bones.
lex talionis was thought to have originated with
Moses and Hebrew law.
Lex talionis:
the principle or law of retaliation that a punishm
ent inflicted should correspond in degree and ki
nd to the
offense of the wrongdoer; retributive justice.
POLITICS AND PHILOSOPHY
IN ANCIENT GREECE
Politics and Justice
HESIOD'S EPIC POEM WORKS AND
DAYS
In the late eighth century, for example,
contrasts the brute strength with which a
hawk can dominate a nightingale
“You are being held by one who is much
stronger… I will make a meal of you, if I
want, or let you go,” lines 206–208
THE QUESTION HERE IS WHY
WAS POLITICS IMPORTANT TO
THE GREEKS?
WHAT IS POLITICS GOOD FOR?
The distinctive understanding of “politics” forged
in Greece was marked by the emergence of the
independent city-state and the variety of regimes
which it could harbor.
The city was the domain of potential
collaboration in leading the good life.
But what was politics good for?
Politics addressed the idea of justice, which was
fundamental to the city as the structure of civic
bonds.
WHAT IS JUSTICE?
Justice was beneficial to all (rich and poor, powerful
and weak alike) which prevents the exploitation of
some by others.
Justice defined the basis of equal citizenship and
was said to be the requirement for human regimes
to be acceptable to the gods.
The ideal was that, with justice as a foundation,
political life would enable its participants to flourish
and to achieve the human end of happiness
(eudaimonia).
Justice, then, depended on, and only the equals as
full citizens.
Yet how should “the equal” be understood?
Eudaimonia: is a Greek word commonly translated as happiness or welfare;
however, "human flourishing" is a more accurate translation
JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
This became the major political fault-line of the
Greek fifth century BCE.
Oligarchial regimes considered only
the kalokagathoi —the elite and well-born, usually
also wealthy—to be equals.
Democratic regimes treated the “many” (all free-
and native-born men) as political equals of the
elite “few”.
There was exclusion of women from active
citizenship in Athens.
SOCRATES AND JUSTICE
SOCRATES (470/469 BC – 399 BC)
was a Greek philosopher
credited as one of the founders
of Western philosophy.
He is known chiefly through the
writings of his student Plato.
Through his portrayal in Plato's
dialogues, Socrates has become
renowned for his contribution to
the field of ethics.
He created the Socratic method,
or elenchus, a commonly used
tool in a wide range of
discussions, and is a type
of pedagogy in which a series of
questions is asked not only to
draw individual answers, but
also to encourage fundamental
insight into the issue at hand.
THE REPUBLIC BY PLATO
In The Republic, Plato, speaking through his
teacher Socrates, sets out to answer two
questions. What is justice? Why should we be
just?
His attempt to define justice as the thing which
a properly constructed government should
achieve.
One of his cynical notions is that justice is
a compromise between getting what we really
want, which is to take advantage of our fellow
man, and our fear of being the victim of
another. We construct governments and have
invented "justice" to sugarcoat the bargain: we
will give up the ability to abuse others so that
we are safe in turn.
SIMONIDES (A POET)
Debating with Socrates, Simonides
consolidates his view of the nature of
justice.
First, he defines justice as giving
everyone his or her due (owing). ius
suum cuique. The Latin phrase of the
old Greek principle of justice which translates
literally into English as "to each his own"
Then he modifies his position that
justice is a matter of giving everyone
what is appropriate to him or her.
Finally, Simonides defines justice is in
helping one's friends and injuring one's
enemies.
SOCRATES NEGATES THIS
DEFINITION
Socrates shows that the function of a
just man is not to harm his enemies. For
doing so, the just man becomes unjust.
He states that there is always the
chance that the friend you are trying to
help out is really your enemy or the
enemies that you are trying to harm are
really your friends
Socrates states, "it is never right to
harm anyone at any time"
THRASYMACHUS, (IN SAME
DISCUSSION
“OLDER SOPHISTS”)
Thrasymachus claims that ‘injustice, if it is on a
large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more
masterly than justice’ (344c).
He states that justice "is in the interest of
the stronger party" (Lee 19) and that it is
a virtue only intended for the weaker
members of a society.
THRASYMACHUS MAKES THREE
CENTRAL CLAIMS ABOUT JUSTICE.
1- Justice is nothing but the advantage of the
stronger (338c)
meaning that justice comes in the favour of the
stronger, because the weaker gives to the stronger.
Thrasymachus is an advocate of natural right who
claims that it is just (by nature) that the strong rule
over the weak.
According to Thrasymachus, the just man
leads a good life because he is fearful of the
repercussions of his actions. The unjust man
is not fearful of these repercussions because
he is stronger and more intelligent than the
average citizen.
THE THREE CLAIMS
2- Justice is obedience to laws (339b)
He denies that justice is anything beyond
obedience to existing laws.
3- Justice is nothing but the advantage of
another (343c).
that justice is the good of another and thus
incompatible with the pursuit of one’s self-
interest.
Thrasymachus’ project is to show that justice
does not exist.
SOCRATES ATTACKS
THRASYMACHUS' POSITION
First, the just man is always more
intelligent than the unjust man. Socrates'
says that an intelligent human being will
always do the right thing.
The secondly, that the unjust man gains
strength from acting unjustly and is really
the unjust man's down fall.
Socrates points out that there must be
some honor among thieves or they could
not work together to steal. If the thieves
could not agree with what they wished to
collectively steal, they could not trust each
other to perform their individual function to
attain the object of their desires.
SOCRATES SUMS UP HIS MEANING OF
JUSTICE
Complete injustice only leads to total chaos
and destruction.
Socrates states that the function of human
kind is to live. Then he posses the question:
What is man's virtue? To Socrates a virtue
is a characteristic that makes something
perform its function well. If injustice is a
source of chaos and disharmony, justice is a
source of order and harmony. If injustice is
a defect of man, justice is man's virtue.
According to Socrates, without justice man
cannot perform his function, he cannot live.
If man cannot live very well, how would he
be able to live a happy life?
MEDIEVAL THINKERS
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527)
NICCOLÒ MACHIAVELLI
He was an Italian historian,
politician, diplomat,
philosopher, humanist and writer
based in Florence during
the Renaissance. He was for
many years an official in
the Florentine Republic. He was
a founder of modern political
science, and more
specifically political ethics.. He
was Secretary to the
Second Chancery of the Republic
of Florence from 1498 to 1512,
when the Medici were out of
power. He wrote his
masterpiece, The Prince, after
the Medici had recovered power
and he no longer held a position
of responsibility in Florence.
NICCOLÒ MACHIAVELLI AND "THE PRINCE"
He formulated his own theory of effective government in
a treatise known as "The Prince."
He famously asserted that good rulers sometimes have
to learn "not to be good," they have to be willing to set
aside ethical concerns of justice, honesty, and kindness
in order to maintain the stability of the state.
The idea was shocking to contemporaries, who had
inherited medieval ideas about divine kingship, in which
the king was appointed by God for the express purpose
of serving as a sort of celestial deputy on earth,
upholding law and justice.
In contrast, Machiavelli argued that the most successful
kings were not the ones who acted according to dictates
of law, or justice, or conscience, but those willing to do
whatever was necessary to preserve their own power--
and thus indirectly preserve the order of the state.
"MACHIAVELLIANISM"
is a widely used negative term to
characterize dishonest politicians of the sort
Machiavelli described in The Prince. The book
itself gained enormous notoriety because the
author seemed to be endorsing behavior
often deemed as evil and immoral.
"Machiavellian" became a by-word for
treachery, sneakiness, ambition, and
ruthlessness.
His main ideas include
The ends justify the means
whether it is better to be loved than feared,
for a ruler.
MACHIAVELLI AND JUSTICE
The classical believe that : to act justly is the
one and only means to promote the common
good
for Machiavelli this traditional view of justice
was a conflicted one.
The virtue of generosity is extolled in almost
every religion, and is seen by many as being
the defining characteristic of a just man.
But Machiavelli challenges its ‘justness’ in a
prince.
To appear a generous man, believes Machiavelli, then a
prince must be ostentatious, and will thus soon squander
all of his state’s resources.
To maintain the appearance of being generous therefore a
prince must, “…lay excessive burdens on the people, to
impose extortionate taxes, and to do everything else he
can to raise money.”[ As a result the people begin to
despise his rule, the prince punishes the many while
rewarding only a few. The prince leaves himself vulnerable
to the first setback, and minor tribulations will spell
disaster.
Thus the prudent prince, the truly just prince, would not
mind being called a miser says Machiavelli. For in time his
parsimony, will be recognised as true generosity, in that
the state revenues are enough for him, and he can defend
the state against an aggressor and launch campaigns
without burdening the people. In doing so he proves
himself generous to those subjects from whom he takes
nothing, which are many, and miserly only to those to
whom he gives nothing, which are few argues Machiavelli.
Honesty is seen as being integral, inseparable in our
definition, and the definition of a just man. But in a
Prince this honesty is argues Machiavelli is
destruction. Machiavelli demonstrates that princes
must not always honour their word. A Prince must be
a lion to scare away the wolves and a fox to see the
traps. “…because men are wretched creatures who
would not keep their word…” and so princes are not
obligated to keep their word. Because it is the nature
of men to betray and to those who are given the
chance would readily betray him says Machiavelli.
Therefore the just ruler must not, keep his word when
it would be disadvantageous to himself or more
importantly the common welfare. Furthermore argues
Machiavelli when the conditions in which the prince
made the promise cease to exist he is again not
obligated to keep it.