# A philosophical inquiry: What is "justice?"



## Puritanhead (Aug 16, 2005)

A philosophical inquiry: What is "justice?"

In Plato's dialogues about justice in _The Republic_, Adeimantus says it is a bunch of make believe philosophical mumbo-jumbo relating to the ambiguity of the poets and the example of the Gods. Cephalus hints that injustice is deterred by fear of punishment in the afterlife. Polemarchus says its just giving each one their due. 

More notably, Thrasymachus states that "justice is nothing more than the will of the stronger..." In our dog-eat-dog world, sometimes it seems that way, but it is hardly how I would conceive of it. 

*What is your perspective perspective on "justice?" 

Getting away from Hellenic or Platonic philosophy, is there a distinctively Christian view about "justice?"*


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 17, 2005)

Rather simplistic. For the wages of sin is death.

I haven't read much Philosophy. Is that what you are looking for? Does anyone address this issue through philosophy? I would think one our esteemed churchmen have.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 17, 2005)

A lot could be said about justice wrt man's relationship with God and man's relationship with man, but I think justice is truly summed up in both tables of the Decalogue.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I think justice is truly summed up in both tables of the Decalogue.



That settles it... 

R.C. Sproul does a good job on God's justice being an integral attribute of the Almighty's Holiness in his book _The Holiness of God_.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 12, 2005)

Justice is getting what you deserve according to God's stipulations.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 13, 2005)

I am going to move the ball back to the horizontal level:
Who defines justice: God or Man?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2005)

We have to start with the Logos. God is the preeminent definer. Everything else is a deviation of the original.


----------



## rgrove (Sep 13, 2005)

Almost looks like you walked into a well placed ambush there Randy.  Hehehe...


----------



## sola_gratia (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...






> _Originally posted by rgrove_
> 
> Almost looks like you walked into a well placed ambush there Randy.  Hehehe...


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 13, 2005)

If God defines justice (as an orthodox Christian must admit), then we would have to ask where he defines it. We are then pressed to say: The Bible. Therefore, our penalogy, economics, and educational philosophy must reflect the Bible, otherwise untrampled human will determines how to punish right and wrong. No longer do men die for crimes against a holy God but for resisting the arbitrary will of the State. 

Civil disobedience is now unecessary. If the State arbitrarily determines what is right and wrong, if the State is the final standard of justice, then it is morally wrong, not only to actively resist them, but even say with Peter, "We ought to obey God rather than Man."


----------



## crhoades (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> If God defines justice (as an orthodox Christian must admit), then we would have to ask where he defines it. We are then pressed to say: The Bible. Therefore, our penalogy, economics, and educational philosophy must reflect the Bible, otherwise untrampled human will determines how to punish right and wrong. No longer do men die for crimes against a holy God but for resisting the arbitrary will of the State.
> 
> Civil disobedience is now unecessary. If the State arbitrarily determines what is right and wrong, if the State is the final standard of justice, then it is morally wrong, not only to actively resist them, but even say with Peter, "We ought to obey God rather than Man."



But what about natural law?Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



No, it is a valid question. If "whatever is, is right" and is consistent, then biblical revelation becomes superflous at best, dangerous at worst. Superflouos because it is telling you nothing that you don't already know by reason. It is dangerous because it might command you to believe in something other than what is apparent to reason.


----------

