Is Justice inherently better than Injustice?
“The curse of the LORD is on the house of the wicked, but He
blesses the home of the just”.
Will the just man fare better than the unjust man? This is
one of the overarching questions many people from very diverse backgrounds and
belonging to different classes have pondered over since the days of yore. I
have also contemplated the same subject over and over again, and would want to
share my thoughts on the subject matter. History is replete with stories of an
alarming number of both just and unjust people - from rulers to the man on the street -and
how they fared in life depending on the path they chose.
Justice is at the core of human activity. It is embedded
within both individual conscience and the collective conscience of society.
Whilst Justice is admiringly applauded, injustice on the other hand is frowned
upon, condemned and rebuked.
But is the just man better than the unjust? Adeimantus in
contention with Socrates on the topic of Justice, which is captured neatly in
Plato’s Republic, seems to agree that the unjust man would fare better than the
just man. He opines that people resort to justice and shun injustice because of
the fear of punishment that their course of injustice would bring upon them. He
maintains audaciously that people in general would be unjust if they could get
away with it.
I agree with Adeimantus to some extent. Humans are not loyal
angels or gods; we gravitate easily towards what is bad and what provides
instant gratification without so much thought about possible future
consequences. That explains why most people prefer to be unjust. The temporary
enjoyment of unjust gains and instant gratification are sometimes too
irresistible for the base desires of the fallen flesh.
To do good or to be just require so much effort, probably
ten times more than the effort required to engage in an unjust endeavor.
As a result, we have in a world where though there is an
abundance of resources for everyone, millions of people cannot afford basically
three square meals a day, let alone a decent shelter. Why won’t this be the
case when politicians cannot help increasing their already vast wealth through
corrupt and unjust means? Religious leaders are too weak (or too ‘wise’) to
tell their congregants the truth, as this would inevitably curtail the torrent
of largesse that is cascading down into their deep, mysteriously bottomless
pockets. Many commercial enterprises are so enthusiastically advertising and
promoting brands that they know are not good for the public for the sake of getting
money quickly – prolific manufacturing of fake medicine is the order of the day
in some countries, greedy and ruthless depletion of forest or natural reserves
for myopia business interests, release of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere
by giant corporations without so much thought about the health of the citizens,
etc
It seems injustice in the short term and from the
perspective of the individual is not only tempting but also profitable. All
those who engage in unjust means are bound to increase their stock of wealth,
improve their living conditions arguably at the expense of the masses and
highly likely to optimize happiness.
Many a person has wondered if the mighty arm of the
universal law of cause and effect is not too strong and long enough to reach
unjust people. If the unfailing law of cause and effect is always in force and
moving speedily and searchingly to identify and reward or punish people for
their actions, then why do unjust ones continue to flourish? It appears that
cause and effect is only true in the case of personal sins and evil committed
against specific individuals or groups while it is powerless and inoperative on
evil or sins perpetuated against the larger society in general or the community
as a whole without any targeted individual or individuals.
The writer of Ecclesiastes noted the apparent delay of judgment
on the unjust in his explanation of the causes of the increasing spate of
immoral actions. He writes: “Because sentence against a bad work has not been
executed speedily, that is why the heart of the sons of men has become fully
set in them to do bad.” (Eccle 8:11)
It is little wonder that injustice is extremely enticing. If
there is no judgment or afterlife, then the course of injustice is ‘noble’ and
ought to be pursued. The bible writer of
the book of Proverbs, clearly conscious of this dilemma, lovingly admonished
good people not to be envious or enticed by the unjust gains and enjoyment of
corrupt people because there is an afterlife where God would reverse the reward
system to favor the just. He noted “
One of the numerous lovers of justice who have been cruelly
tormented by the enticements of the unjust life was an Israelite by name Asaph
in Psalm 73. Asaph was also caught up in
the same justice/injustice quandary when he saw how the unjust ones of his day were
flourishing in peace and seemed happy whilst the just ones ironically were the
ones grieving. His only consolation came when in an attempt to discern the
future of the unjust, he entered the grand sanctuary of God where he was
satisfactorily reassured that the unjust ones were placed on a slippery ground
by God, a noteworthy point which once again reminds us of judgement or
punishment for the unjust now and a rewarding and a pleasurable afterlife for
the just in the coming righteous new world.
This brings us back to Adeimantus initial factual
observation that, without punishment or judgement, people will choose the path
of injustice. In this evil age that
humanity finds itself, injustice reigns supreme and it is the unjust ones who
shine brilliantly. To be just virtually means to be self-denying, self-sacrificing,
idiot, and to fight against one’s own rapid advancement in life.
Nonetheless, the course of justice undeniably yields good
fruits in spite of the fact that it is challenging to pursue. Honour, Respect,
Glory, Integrity are but few of the gains from a life-course of justice. It is
pretty interesting how Adeimantus is swift to point out that it is these
rewards, and not the love of justice itself, that propel people to act justly,
while forgetting that it is the same rewards – instant gratification and
temporary enjoyment of unjust gains- and not love of injustice itself, that
motivate people to act unjustly.
In and of itself, aside all the entitlements and rewards
both courses of justice and injustice hold, justice seem better than injustice.
The just man, albeit poor materially, is always at peace with himself which
form the basis of true happiness and inner joy, an ultimate goal of human
existence which even all the manifold benefits of injustice can never furnish. Debatably, the course of injustice only yields
momentary pleasure and robs its agent of serene peace and true joy in life.
Socrates’ city-state analogy also validates the importance
of justice over injustice. Socrates notes that a just man is the result of a
well-ordered soul and society would be just if people (building on the premise
of the earth-born theory) are permitted to do that which they are best inclined
or naturally positioned to do – that is allowing Philosophers rule, strong men
guard and protect the city, and the ordinary people produce.
Although at the micro level, unjust actions benefit those
who engage in it, the consequences of their unjust actions negatively affect
the entire society. Society would be just and peaceful if individuals strive to
pursue the path of justice. A terrifying rise in unjust practices by members of
a given society would only serve to increase pain and hardship in the society,
trigger off strife and class struggles or conflicts, and last but not least,
skyrocket the spate of criminal activities in the society. Society then becomes
nearly uninhabitable and life becomes
“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.
