POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY

Review Ethics – ring of Gyges, psychological egoism, Relative ethics - ethical subjectivism,
cultural relativism, divine command theory, Universal ethics – virtue theory, natural law, ethical
egoism, ethical altruism, utilitarianism, deontology, feminine care ethics.
What Is Justice?
One of the oldest and most influential ideas in human history is the importance of justice.
The Five Books of Moses teaches. “Justice, justice shall you pursue” (Deuteronomy 16:20). The
Prophet Amos teaches, “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a might stream”
(Amos 5:24). The Preamble of the United States Constitution begins with the government’s
responsibility to “establish justice.” And Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, “Injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
But what precisely is justice? It is an important term that is very difficult to pin down.
Perhaps the most ambitious attempt to define justice was in Plato’s dialogue The Republic, which
many consider his greatest work. This book contains the famous story of the ring of Gyges and
it also contains Plato’s allegory of the cave. But the heart of the book is an attempt to define an
ideal state based on principles of justice. Plato was reacting to what he considered the injustice
and corruption of the city-state of Athens. Afterall, this was the government that had executed
his mentor Socrates.
The book begins with Socrates, who represents Plato’s position, in dialogue with various
leaders of the Athenian community, on the meaning of justice. He first encounters Cephalus, an
older aristocratic statesman. Cephalus presents a traditional view of justice as “speaking the
truth and paying one’s debt.” Socrates brings a classical challenge. If someone borrows a
weapon, is it justice to return it to the owner. What of the person wants the weapon back to kill
an innocent person? Obviously, justice is not simply paying debts, if such payment leads to an
unjust situation. Polemarchus, the son of Cephalus builds on his father’s point of view. Justice
is seeking the good of one’s friends and the harm of one’s enemies. Socrates responds that it is
not always clear who is a friend and who is an enemy.
Thrasymachus then give a more radical view of justice. Justice is whatever the strong
and those in power desire. This definition is very close to ethical egoism which we studied in the
previous module. It is the strong who define what justice is. This reflects the view of Socrates’
bitter enemies, the Sophists, who taught that there are no universal standards of justice. “Man is
the measure of all things,” justice is man-made, and the strong have the ability to set standards of
justice. Socrates responds that justice requires people who are superior in character and
intelligence, not simply in power.
At this point Plato’s brother Glaucon presents the story of Gyges and the ring that makes
him invisible. His point is that people will do whatever they can get away with for their own
self-fulfillment. Earlier we called this psychological egoism. For Glaucon, people band together
to form governments which prevent people from hurting other people. In a sense, Glaucon saw
justice as a social contract, an idea later developed by Thomas Hobbes.
 Finally, Plato presents (through the mouth of Socrates) his own view of justice. Justice in
the city is parallel to justice within the human psyche. Justice is not something external but
internal. He uses the image of a human soul or psyche for a model of how justice in the city state
should work.
Plato describes a tripartite vision of the human
soul. The three parts are reason, spirit, and appetite. The
reason needs to be controlled by wisdom. The spirit needs
to be controlled by courage. The appetites need to be
controlled by temperance. When these three parts of the
human soul are in balance, that is justice. Thus, we arrive
at Plato’s four cardinal virtues, wisdom, courage,
temperance, and justice. Plato sometimes pictured this as
a chariot driver controlling two horses. The driver is
reason and the horses are spirit and appetite. When they are in balance, that is justice.
Thought Question – Like Plato, Sigmund Freud also envisions a tripartite vision of the
soul. The id is the inner drives such as anger and sex, the superego is the rules set down by
parents and civilization, and the ego is the self, attempting to control these other two. Do you
believe that Freud was influenced by Plato?
Now we turn to the brilliant insight of Plato. The ideal state is analogous to the human
psyche. The state is run by philosopher kings – who represent wisdom. The guardians of the
state, the military and the police, are analogous to spirit – they must display courage. The
farmers, artisans, shop keepers, and ordinary workers are analogous to the appetite – they must
display temperance and self-discipline. And when each of these groups play their respective role
and keep a balance, this is justice. Justice is the balanced functioning of the state by everyone
performing their roles.
Plato developed some radical ideas for his time about the leaders of the state, the
philosopher kings. First, they also included philosopher queens; the role was open to women
who were considered worthy. Second, philosopher kings and queens could not have families of
their own. They did not marry. They could be chosen to have children, but the children were
raised communally. Those in positions of leadership should not be distracted by family
responsibilities. Finally, only those children trained in mathematics as well as philosophy were
chosen to be philosopher kings.
Plato envisioned a true aristocracy. He had no use for democracy, which he considered
mob rule. After all, it was a democracy that had killed Socrates.
Aristotle, in his book Politics, studied various forms of government. He divided
governments into six categories. Rule by one is a monarchy which can degenerate into a
tyranny. Ideally the monarchy rules in the interest of his subjects but too often such a monarch is
only concerned with his own power. Rule by a few is an aristocracy which can degenerate into
an oligarchy. In an aristocracy only the best rule according to virtue, but this can degenerate into
the rich ruling to maintain their own power. An aristocracy was Aristotle’s favorite form of
government. Rule by the many is called a polity, which involves both the rich and the poor
ruling for the greater good. But this can degenerate into democracy which Aristotle, like Plato,
saw as mob rule.
Governments: Aristotelian Typology
Number of Rulers Ideal Perverted
One Monarchy Tyranny
Few Aristocracy Oligarchy
Many Polity Democracy

Punishment as Justice
When we consider justice, we often look at punishment. We say that “criminals deserve
justice” for their crimes. This raises the question as to the purpose of punishment. Should
people who use illegal drugs be punished? Is true rehabilitation ever possible? Ethicists see
various reasons for punishments:
Retributive Justice – This philosophy teaches that when someone commits a crime, they
deserve a punishment commensurate with that crime. They deserve punishments. Such a
punishment often goes by the Latin phrase lex talionis based on the idea “an eye for an eye, a
tooth for a tooth” as taught in the Bible. (One should note that lex talionis was already more
liberal than the Hammurabi Code where, if someone kills someone else’s son, the other can kill
that person’s son. Later Jewish Law would say that “an eye for an eye” was not meant to be
taken literally but signifies money.) Today many people question retributive justice as pure
revenge that serves no moral purpose. If we are to punish people, it must be for other reasons.
Restorative Justice – This philosophy attempts to restore the situation before the crime
took place through reconciliation between the perpetrator and the criminal. In a financial crime
such as stealing, it would involve paying back money that is owed. It also seeks rehabilitation
and dialogue between all parties in a crime. Obviously, restorative justice is very difficult to
implement following crimes of murder, rape, or severe bodily harm. But some have argued even
in these cases that there is room for a dialogue between the perpetrator and the victim, perhaps
leading to forgiveness.
Punishment as Deterrence – This is a utilitarian principle advocated by John Rawls and
many others. The purpose of justice is to increase the amount of good in society by preventing
this particularly crime from happening in the future. By locking up a criminal, that criminal is
prevented from repeating that crimes. The hope is that others who see the punishment will be
dissuaded from ever committing similar crimes. Here we are not concerned with the effect on
the criminal but rather on society as a whole.
Punishment as Rehabilitation – This teaches that the purpose of punishment is to change
the criminal so that they become a different person, unlikely to commit similar crimes. This
theory of punishment is becoming more and more popular today. The argument is that
retribution as a source of punishment serves no moral purpose, whereas rehabilitation has the
potential to create a new person who can benefit society. Many people in prison earn high
school or college degrees, learn skills to use in the workplace, or find religion. They come out as
better people.

Social Contract Theory

Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) – Hobbes was the first that came up with “social contract
theory,” although the idea was already suggested by Plato. Political organization is based on a
kind of legal fiction, that humans made a social contract. Hobbes had taught that people in a
state of nature are selfish and cruel. Remember that he was a strong proponent of “psychological
egoism.” In nature life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
For society to exist, people gave up their rights, even to a dictator or despot who is able to keep
the peace. Hobbes put his ideas together in a book entitled Leviathan. Legal positivism teaches
that government is the basis of laws, and that whatever government enacts is the absolute law.
Laws grow out of power, so there are no just laws or unjust laws. To Hobbes, government
prevents the war of all against all, which is fundamental to human nature.
John Locke (1632 -1704) –Locke was also a social contract philosopher. He saw a more limited
role of government. Government must keep the peace, but Locke emphasized the role of
government in protecting rights. According to Enlightenment thinking, rights come because of
our humanity. The idea of human rights never appears in classical Greek philosophy, nor in the
Bible. It was articulated by John Locke, who spoke of humans being endowed with certain
unalienable rights, meaning they cannot be taken away. Locke mentioned the rights to life,
liberty, and property. Thomas Jefferson, in the American Declaration of Independence, built on
Locke’s idea of rights. He wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among
these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed.”
There has been a gradual growth in the enumeration of rights. Some include the right to medical
care for all humans. The Supreme Court defined a right to privacy which became the basis of the
right of abortion. Recently there was an expansion of the rights of gays to marry. Meanwhile,
many argue for the absolute run to own and carry guns. What if one person’s rights interfere
with the rights of another? Does a conservative Christian baker have the right on religious
grounds not to bake a cake for a gay couple getting married? (This was a real case that made it
to the Supreme Court.)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) – Rousseau was another social contract philosopher. He
totally disagreed with Hobbes. People in a state of nature are naturally good; it is society that
corrupts people. “People are born free and everywhere are in chains.” Since society exists, there
must be a social contract to create a government. Governments must respect what Rousseau
called a national will, that can be decided through pure democracy. Society as a collective body
comes up with this will. Rousseau was one of the first thinkers of the Romantic Movement,
which rejected the stark rationalism of the Enlightenment in favor of greater emotionalism and a
return to nature. Thought question – are the Biblical religions like Christianity or Judaism closer
to Hobbes or Rousseau? Is humanity, left in nature, fundamentally evil or fundamentally good?
John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) – Mill, as we already mentioned, was a major thinker of
utilitarianism. Remember that he said that there are different qualities of pleasure. He also
developed the idea of non-malfeasance. (Avoiding harm). He was particularly concerned about
harm to minorities, something that was not a concern of Rousseau. What if the people, by the
national will, chooses to take away the rights of a minority? Therefore, he was a very strong
advocate of freedom of speech so that minority views can be heard.
One can see how these political theories developed into the modern state. The problem is, what
about justice, in particular, distributive justice. Is it fair that some people have property and
others do not? Was Locke right – is there really a right to property? Or should the government
pursue what is often termed social justice, a fairer allocation of society’s resources. This is the
goal of distributive justice.

Distributive Justice
Should the government take money from the wealthy and redistribute it to the poor? This is the
meaning of distributive justice.
The usual definition of justice is giving everyone what is due to them. In this sense, justice
means absolute fairness. In fact, philosopher John Rawls who we will study momentarily, spoke
of “justice as fairness.” Rawls uses social contract theory to speak of distributive justice. This is
the attempt to make sure that people have equal access to the necessities of life. Often it means
taken from those who have more and giving to those who have less. Is this fair? We will look at
five different thinkers including Rawls.
Karl Marx ((818 – 1883) – As already mentioned, Marx was a dialectical materialist. He taught,
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point however is to change it.” Marx was
very upset with the horrible working conditions in industrial Britain. The problem is that the
working class (proletariat) did not own the value of their labor. Their labor went to the
capitalists (bourgeoisie).
Marx believed that eventually the proletariat would overthrow the bourgeoisie. A new society
would emerge where the workers would own the means of production. Private property would
disappear. Instead, a society would be built based on the principle, “From each according to his
abilities, to each according to his needs.” Marx called this communism. Could such a society
work? Russia tried it, as did the Israeli kibbutz. (The hammer and sickle on the right is the
symbol of Russian communism.) Such pure socialism failed to succeed in the long run.
John Rawls (1921 – 2002) – Until Rawls, social contract theory had pretty much died out among
philosophers. Rawls brought it back in his Theory of Justice. Imagine that we had to build a
political and economic system from behind a “veil of ignorance.” We would not know whether
we would be born rich or poor, male or female, native or immigrant. What kind of system would
we build? First, we would make sure that everybody had certain primary social goods. (food,
shelter, medical care education, what else?) Second, if there are inequalities, they must work to
the advantage of the neediest members of society. He called this the “difference principle.”
Rawls imagined distributive justice based on a social contract.
Robert Nozick (1938 – 2002) – Nozick, in Anarchy, State, and Utopia gave a strong conservative
counter attack on Rawls. He claims that property rights are fundamental (going back to Locke)
and any attempt to redistribute wealth is unjust. He called for a minimalist state whose only role
is to protect people. Many Democrats lean more towards Rawls; Republicans lean more towards
Nozick. Which would be better for society?
Peter Singer (b. 1946) – Australian-born Princeton philosopher Peter Singer developed one of the
most debated thought experiments in philosophical debates about distributive justice. Suppose
you were wearing an expensive suit and saw a child drowning in mud. Would you save the
child, even if it destroys your suit? Of course. What if you heard of a child starving in Africa.
Would you give up the expensive suit or other luxuries to save that child? The same logic
applies. In his 1972 essay "Famine, Affluence and Morality", he posits that citizens of rich
nations are morally obligated to give much of their disposable income to charities that help the
global poor. Singer also coined the term “speciesism” about favoring people over animals.
Ayn Rand (1905 – 1982) We already explored the thinking of Ayn Rand when we explored
ethical egoism. Rand taught that people should act in their rational self-interest. Altruism is a
dirty word. Giving, even voluntarily, weakens both the giver and the recipient. Everybody is
responsible of their own social welfare, without being dependent on others.
It is worthwhile to draw a line ranging from equality of wealth on the left to absolute property
rights on the right. On the extreme left we see Karl Marx who does not believe in private
property. To the left is Peter Singer, who says that disposable wealth must be redistributed.
More to center left is John Rawls, who calls for some redistribution of wealth to give everywhere
fundamental social goods. To the right is Robert Nozick who considers any redistribution of
wealth by the government to be a form of theft. To the extreme right is Ayn Rand who believes
even the voluntary redistribution of wealth for altruistic reasons is a sign of weakness. The
Democratic party leans to the center left, the Republican party leans to the center right on this
line. Where do you stand?