Why couldn't ancient civilizations find justice?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Striving for justice is one of the most important human aspirations. In any social organization of any complexity, the need for a moral assessment of interactions with other people has always been extremely great. Justice is the most important incentive for people to act, to assess what is happening, the most important element of perception of themselves and the world.

The chapters written below do not pretend to be any complete description of the history of the concepts of justice. But in them we tried to focus on the basic principles from which people at different times proceeded, evaluating the world and themselves. And also on those paradoxes that they faced, realizing these or those principles of justice.

Greeks discover justice

The idea of justice appears in Greece. Which is understandable. As soon as people unite in communities (policies) and begin to interact with each other not only at the level of tribal relations or at the level of direct rule-subordination, there is a need for a moral assessment of such interaction.

Before that, the whole logic of justice fit into a simple scheme: justice is following a given order of things. The Greeks, however, also largely adopted this logic - the teachings of the sages-founders of the Greek city-states somehow boiled down to an understandable thesis: "Only what is in our laws and customs is fair." But with the development of cities, this logic has become noticeably more complicated and expanded.

So, what is true is that which does not harm others and is done for the good. Well, since the natural order of things is an objective good, then following it is the basis for any criteria for assessing fairness.

The same Aristotle wrote very convincingly about the justice of slavery. Barbarians are naturally destined for physical labor and submission, and therefore it is very even true that the Greeks - by nature destined for mental and spiritual labor - make them slaves. Because it is good for barbarians to be slaves, even if they themselves do not understand this due to their unreasonableness. This same logic allowed Aristotle to speak of a just war. The war waged by the Greeks against the barbarians for the sake of replenishing the army of slaves is just, since it restores the natural state of affairs and serves for the good of all. Slaves receive masters and the opportunity to realize their destiny, and the Greeks - slaves.

Plato, proceeding from the same logic of justice, proposed to carefully monitor how children play and, by the type of play, define them in social groups for the rest of their lives. Those who play war are guards, they need to be taught the craft of war. Those who rule are philosophical rulers, they must be taught Platonic philosophy. And you don't need to teach everyone else - they will work.

Naturally, the Greeks shared the good for the individual and the common good. The second is certainly more important and significant. Therefore, for the common good there has always been primacy in the assessment of justice. If something infringes on other individuals, but presupposes the common good, this is certainly true. However, for the Greeks there was no particular contradiction here. They called the general good the good for the polis, and the cities in Greece were small, and not at the level of abstraction, but at a very specific level, it was assumed that the one whose good was infringed, for the good of everyone, would return him as a member of the community, with a profit. This logic, of course, led to the fact that justice for their own (residents of your polis) was very different from justice for strangers.

Socrates who confused everything

So, the Greeks figured out what good is. We figured out what the natural order of things is. We figured out what justice is.

But there was one Greek who liked to ask questions. Good-natured, consistent and logical. You already understood that we are talking about Socrates.

In Xenophon's "Memories of Socrates" there is an amazing chapter "A Conversation with Euthydemus about the Need to Learn." questions that Socrates asked the young politician Euthydemus about justice and welfare.

Read this brilliant dialogue from Xenophon himself or, perhaps, even better, as presented by Mikhail Leonovich Gasparov. However, you can also right here.

"Tell me: is it fair to lie, cheat, steal, grab people and sell them into slavery?" - "Of course it's unfair!" - "Well, if the commander, after repelling the attack of the enemies, captures the prisoners and sells them into slavery, will that also be unfair?" - "No, perhaps that is fair." - "And if he loots and ravages their land?" - "Also true." - "And if he deceives them with military tricks?" - “That’s also true. Yes, perhaps I told you inaccurately: lies, deception, and theft are fair to enemies, but unfair to friends."

"Wonderful! Now I, too, seem to begin to understand. But tell me this, Euthydem: if a commander sees that his soldiers are depressed, and lies to them that allies are approaching them, and this will cheer them up, will such a lie be unfair? " - "No, perhaps that is fair." - "And if a son needs medicine, but he does not want to take it, and the father tricks it into food, and the son recovers, - would such a deception be unfair?" - "No, also fair." - “And if someone, seeing a friend in despair and fearing that he would lay hands on himself, steals or takes away his sword and dagger, - what to say about such theft?” “And that's true. Yes, Socrates, it turns out that I again told you inaccurately; it was necessary to say: lies, and deceit, and theft - this is fair in relation to enemies, but in relation to friends it is fair when it is done for their good, and unjust when it is done for their evil."

“Very good, Euthydem; now I see that before I can recognize justice, I need to learn to recognize good and evil. But you know that, of course? " - “I think I know, Socrates; although for some reason I am not so sure of that anymore. " - "So what is it?" “Well, for example, health is good, and illness is evil; food or drink that leads to health is good, and those that lead to illness are evil. " - “Very well, I understood about food and drink; but then, perhaps, it is more correct to say about health in the same way: when it leads to good, then it is good, and when to evil, then it is evil? " - "What are you, Socrates, but when can health be for evil?" “But, for example, an unholy war began and, of course, ended in defeat; the healthy ones went to war and died, but the sick stayed at home and survived; what was health here - good or bad?"

“Yes, I see, Socrates, that my example is unfortunate. But, perhaps, we can say that the mind is a blessing! " - “But is it always? Here the Persian king often demands clever and skillful artisans from Greek cities to his court, keeps them with him and does not let them home; is their mind good for them? " - "Then - beauty, strength, wealth, glory!" “But beautiful slaves are more often attacked by slaves, because beautiful slaves are more valuable; the strong often take on a task that exceeds their strength, and get into trouble; the rich pamper themselves, become victims of intrigue and perish; glory always arouses envy, and from this, too, there is a lot of evil."

"Well, if that's the case," said Euthydemus sadly, "I don't even know what to pray to the gods about."- "Do not worry! It just means that you still do not know what you want to talk to the people about. But do you know the people yourself? " "I think I know, Socrates." - "Who is the people made of?" - "From the poor and the rich." - "And who do you call rich and poor?" - "The poor are those who do not have enough to live on, and the rich are those who have everything in abundance and in excess of it." - “But does it not happen that the poor man knows how to get along well with his small means, while the rich man doesn’t have enough wealth?” - “Indeed, it happens! There are even tyrants who do not have enough of their entire treasury and need illegal extortions. " - “So what? Should we not classify these tyrants as the poor, and the economic poor as the rich? " - “No, it’s better not, Socrates; I see that here I, it turns out, do not know anything."

“Do not despair! You will think about the people, but of course you have thought about yourself and your future fellow speakers, and more than once. So tell me this: there are such bad orators who deceive the people to their detriment. Some do it unintentionally, and some even intentionally. Which ones are better and which ones are worse? " “I think, Socrates, that intentional deceivers are much worse and more unfair than unintentional ones.” - “Tell me: if one person reads and writes with errors on purpose, and the other does not on purpose, then which one is more literate?” - "Probably the one who is on purpose: after all, if he wants, he can write without mistakes." - "But does it not come out of this that an intentional deceiver is better and more just than an unintentional one: after all, if he wants, he can speak with the people without deceiving!" - "Don't, Socrates, don't tell me that, I see now even without you that I don't know anything and it would be better for me to sit and be silent!"

Romans. Justice is right

The Romans were also concerned with the issue of justice. Although Rome began as a small settlement, it quickly grew into a huge state that dominates the entire Mediterranean. The Greek logic of polis justice did not work very well here. Too many people, too many provinces, too many different interactions.

The Romans were helped to cope with the idea of justice. A rebuilt and constantly being completed system of laws to which all citizens of Rome obeyed. Cicero wrote that the state is a community of people united by common interests and agreement in relation to laws.

The legal system combined the interests of society, and the interests of specific people, and the interests of Rome as a state. All this has been described and codified.

Hence the law as the initial logic of justice. What is right is just. And justice is realized through the possession of law, through the possibility of being an object of the action of law.

"Don't touch me, I'm a Roman citizen!" - A man included in the system of Roman law proudly exclaimed, and those who wanted to harm him understood that all the power of the empire would fall on them.

Christian Logic of Justice or Everything's Got Complicated Again

The "New Testament" again confused things a little.

First, he set the absolute coordinates of justice. The Last Judgment is coming. Only there will true justice be manifested, and only this justice matters.

Secondly, your good deeds and a just life here on earth can somehow influence that very decision of the High Court. But these deeds and a just life must be an act of our free will.

Third, the demand to love one's neighbor as oneself, declared by Christ as the main moral value of Christianity, is still something more than just a demand to try not to harm or have a disposition for the good. The Christian ideal presupposes the need to perceive the other as oneself.

And finally, the New Testament abolished the division of people into friends and foes, into worthy and unworthy, into those whose destiny to be the master, and those whose destiny to be a slave: “In the image of the One who created it, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free, but Christ is all and in all (Epistle to the Colossians of the holy Apostle Paul, 3.8)

Based on the logic of the New Testament, now all people should be perceived as equal subjects of justice. And the same criteria of fairness should be applied to all. And the principle of "love for one's neighbor" requires more from justice than simply following the formal criteria of good. The criteria of justice cease to be the same, for everyone they turn out to be their own. And then there's the Last Judgment in the inevitable perspective.

In general, all this was too complicated, it required too much mental and social effort. Fortunately, religious logic itself allowed us to perceive the world in the traditional paradigm of justice. Following the traditions and prescriptions of the church leads more reliably to the kingdom of heaven, for this is both good deeds and a just life. And all these acts of good free will can be omitted. We are Christians and believe in Christ (no matter what he says there), and those who do not believe - our criteria of justice do not fit those. As a result, Christians, when necessary, no worse than Aristotle justified the justice of any wars and any slavery.

However, what was said in the New Testament in one way or another still exerted its influence. And on the religious consciousness, and on the whole European culture.

Do not do what you do not want to be done to you

“Therefore, in everything that you want people to do to you, so do you to them, for in this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12). These words of Christ from the Sermon on the Mount are one of the formulations of the universal moral maxim. Confucius has about the same formula, in the Upanishads and in general in many places.

And it was this formula that became the starting point for thinking about justice in the Age of Enlightenment. The world has become more complicated, people speaking different languages, believers in different ways and in different things, doing different things, more and more actively collided with each other. Practical reason demanded a logical and consistent formula of justice. And I found it in a moral maxim.

It is easy to see that this maxim has at least two very different variants.

"Do not do what you do not want to be treated with you."

"Do as you would like to be treated with you."

The first was called the principle of justice, the second - the principle of mercy. The combination of these two principles solved the problem of who exactly should be considered the neighbor whom should be loved (in the Sermon on the Mount, it is the second option). And the first principle provided the basis for a clear justification of fair actions.

All these reflections were summed up and brought into a categorical imperative by Kant. However, he had to (as the consistent logic of his reflections demanded) slightly change the wording: "Do so that the maxim of your will could be a universal law." The author of the famous “Critic” also has another option: “Act so that you always treat humanity in your own person and in the person of everyone else the same way as a goal, and never treat it only as a means”.

How Marx put everything in its place and justified the struggle for justice

But there were big problems with this formula, in any of its wording. Especially if you go beyond the Christian idea of the highest (divine) good and the highest judge. But what if others do exactly what you would not want them to do to you? What if you are treated unfairly?

And further. People are very different, "what is great for a Russian is a karachun for a German." Some passionately want to see the holy cross on Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, while others do not care about this at all, some control over the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles is vitally important, while others find it important to find somewhere a half for a shot of vodka.

And here Karl Marx helped everyone. He explained everything. The world is divided into warring ones (no, not cities like Aristotle's), but classes. Some classes are oppressed and others are oppressive. Everything that the oppressor does is unfair. Everything that the oppressed do is fair. Especially if these oppressed are the proletariat. Because science has proved that it is the proletariat that is the upper class, behind which is the future, and which represents an objectively good majority and the logic of progress.

So:

First, there is no justice for everyone.

Secondly, what is done for the benefit of the majority is fair.

Thirdly, what is true is that which is objective, immutable (cf. the objective laws of the universe among the Greeks) and progressive.

And finally, what is true is that for the good of the oppressed, and therefore requires a fight. Demands the suppression of those who are against, those who oppress and stand in the way of progress

Actually, Marxism became for many years the main logic of the struggle for justice. And she still is. True, with one important change. Justice for the majority has fallen out of modern Marxist logic.

American philosopher John Rawls created the theory of "fair inequality", which is based on "equality of access to fundamental rights and freedoms" and "priority in access to any opportunity for those who have fewer of these opportunities." There was nothing Marxist in Rawls's logic; rather, on the contrary, it is clearly an anti-Marxist doctrine. However, it was precisely the combination of Rawls's formula and the Marxist approach that created the modern foundations for the struggle for justice and destruction.

The Marxist logic of the struggle for justice is based on the rights of the oppressed. Marx argued in the category of large groups and global processes, and the oppressed was the proletariat - the logic of progress was destined to be the majority. But if the focus is shifted a little, then any other oppressed marginal groups that do not necessarily constitute the majority may find themselves in the place of the proletariat. And so, from Marx's striving to achieve justice for all, a struggle for the rights of any minorities grows, turning the ideas of a German inside out from the century before last.