1

A Reaction to Today’s Concept of Justice

Name

Institution of Affiliation

Date
 A REACTION TO TODAY’S CONCEPT OF JUSTICE 2

A Reaction to Today’s Concept of Justice

Introduction

Justice is one of the critical moral and political concepts in society. It involved doing the

right thing and giving people their due. The perspective of justice is controversial in the modern

world due to the differences in scholars’ definitions (Dustin & Schaeffer, 2006). Three of

Socrates’ young companions present alternative definitions of justice in Book I of The Republic.

Cephalus considers justice as speaking the truth and being honest in one’s dealings. Polemarchus

boldly support the idea that “justice is the art which gives benefit to friends and injury to

enemies” (Plato, 1964, p. 169). Socrates opposes Polemarchus’s proposal because harm makes

an individual “deteriorated in that which is the proper man’s virtue” that justice is the virtue

specific to humans and that justice cannot beget injustice (p. 173). This paper seeks to answer the

question on the definition of justice as provided by Polemarchus. The paper argues that while

Polemarchus’ definition of justice is the most prevalent today, it is problematic as it supports the

condition of animosity and rejects the condition for full humanity.

Polemarchus

Polemarchus’s definition appears to be most prevalent today. A recent example includes

the trade war between the United States and China. Chinas’ recent economic and military rise

has put the US states as the influential global superpower in jeopardy. The trade war between the

United States and China begun when the Trump administration passed a law to enforce tariffs,

valued to be around 60 billion dollars on Chinese imports, while China responded by threatening

to impose tariffs on the US imports. It is argued that Trump’s withdrawal from the TPP was not

due to irrational behavior but due to the need to appease his electoral base, which was made up

of proactive individuals against internationalization (Evans, 2017). It appears that harming

 A REACTION TO TODAY’S CONCEPT OF JUSTICE 3

Trump’s national interest was necessary to rewards the special and socio-economic interests that

drove him to power. This context can be compared to Obama, Trump’s predecessor. Obama’s

objective was to support trade deals supported during the Bush administration, including the

TPP. Obama justified his campaign declaration by outline the supremacy of the US interest over

partisan and electoral politics (Ablow, 2016). Unlike Obama, Trump made efforts to rebel

against China and defame the Chinese as cheaters, manipulators, and militarizing bogeymen who

were bullies in the Asia Pacific region.

Problem with Polemarchus’ perspective

Polemarchus’ definition of justice is problematic as it supports the condition of animosity

and rejects the condition for full humanity. People naturally welcome negative partiality as duties

that are opposite of those created by positive relations. The definition of partiality is a duty to

harm since harm is the contrary of a benefit (Goldsmith, 1995). Polemarchus supports this notion

by arguing that justice benefits our friends and harms our enemies (monsensebenefits morality in

Anciharmsece). He considered justified partiality as the duty of beneficence to apply to the

baseline of people with whom we have no relationship. If the duty of beneficence is reinforced

concerning a particular individual, this person’s well-being ought to be indorsed over that of

other similarly situated people.

Conclusion

Polemarchus’ definition generates purposive tension as the sovereign of in describes

against the community. Partiality takes the shape of special permission, which highly favors

people’s well-being in particular relationships. In a rescue case that entails rescuing three people

over one related to us, we tend to believe that we are permitted, but not required, to save the

related individual. Partiality appears as special permission to discount an individual’s well-being.

 A REACTION TO TODAY’S CONCEPT OF JUSTICE 4

References

Dustin, C & Schaeffer, D (2006). Looks matter: Beholding justice in the Republic. The Review

of Politics. 68(3), 449-473.

Emmons W. D., Guardado R.J, & Kane K. C. (2012). Competition in Health Insurance: A

Comprehensive Study of US Markets, 2012 update. American Medical Association.

Goldsmith, M. M (1995). Glaucon’s Challenge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 73(3), 356-

367.

Plato (1964). The Dialogues of Plato. 4th ed., translated by Benjamin Jowett, Oxford University

Press.

Plato (1992). Republic, translated by Grube, G.M.A.

Ablow, G. (2016, September 1). Why is Obama Pushing the TPP?: Moyers & Company.

Retrieved from http://billmoyers.com/story/obamas-push-tpp

Evans, P. (2017, January 23). Trump pulls US out of TPP, will renegotiate NAFTA ‘at the

appropriate time’. CBC. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/donald-trump-

trade-nafta-1.3947989