ARCHAIC & ANCIENT

• Archaic
o period before Dark Ages, which precedes the time of Plato and Aristotle
o sources of ideas of justice are poetry, archaeology, and artifacts
o Philosophers known + their Theory of Justice
a. Homer Commented [GMML1]: Agamemnon vs Achilles
Þ Justice is “dike” or doing things the “right way” Þ HUBRIS (Agamemnon)
¨Justice is based on ascribed rank,
¨ dikê = “the right way”, particularly as defined by customs
asserted through hubris
¨ it has no moral implications, rather focuses on how things are in nature Þ ARETE (Achilles)
b. Hesiod ¨Justice is based on merit and
Þ Justice is distinctively human, a distinct marker of humanity accomplishment, expressed through arete
¨ Given to humans only by Zeus
¨ This is depicted by its absence in a Cyclopean community, due to their inability
to respect ordinary conventions or standards of civilized human life.
Þ The gods identify human wrongdoing, take note of it, and punish it.
c. Theogenis
d. Solon
Þ Justice as fair distribution of power, honor, and resources; proportional to one’s merit
¨ Individuals will practice the virtues of justice as he knows his welfare is
dependent on the community’s welfare
o Conclusion
a. Justice is a virtue (arete = excellence in the soul)
b. Idea of justice developed within the context of the polis, through relationships between
members, values underlying their relations
c. Different poleis associated justice with the virtue they found important (Sparta = courage,
Athens = fairness)
Þ Hence, justice is dikê or the right way according to custom
• Plato [The Republic]
o Justice is embodied in the ideal state (The Republic)
o What is Justice?
a. Cephalus
Þ Being truthful and paying your debts; giving what one is due
¨ Socrates’ Objection (SO)
ë example of the friend who gives you weapons to keep, then tries to
retrieve it whilst they are not in their right mind
b. Polemarchus
Þ Helping your friends and harming your enemies
¨ SO
ë Helpful in times of war, but how about in times of peace?
ë Harming an enemy is unjust, effectively depicting a just person to be
good at injustice
c. Thrasymachus
Þ The interest of the stronger, the ones in power (related to Nomos)
o Justice as Nomos or Phusis
a. Nomos
Þ artificiality, diversity, variability
Þ Justice as Nomos
¨ Justice is (1) an unstable artifact of human contrivance, and (2) might makes
right. What is just and what is won by force are the same.
¨ (1) Justice is simply being lawful. Laws are always being changed. Therefore,
what is just is relative to each polis and each point in time in each polis.
ë Protagorean Moral Relativism
 ¨ (2) Justice in a polis is what is lawful in it. The polis’ rulers make and enforce a
polis’ laws. Therefore, the polis’ rulers have the coercive force to shape what is
“just.” Their power is what makes certain things “right.”
b. Phusis
Þ truth, sameness, invariability
Þ Justice as Phusis
¨ Justice is a form or a nature, which transcends time and space, without color or
shape, and remains the same. It is an inner state rather than a mode of action.
ë Justice is a harmony of its parts – when reason, passion, and appetite
all function according to how they are supposed to.
1. This is depicted in how a Kallipolis and even Plato’s Republic
(which is the ideal polis, therefore an embodiment of justice), is
described to function because of the harmony of its parts
REASON PASSION APPETITE
KALLIPOLIS Rulers Warriors Workers
- provider of wise - protect the - meet the
leadership city’s freedom needs for
through reason) with their food, shelter,
passion material good

REPUBLIC Philosophers Soldiers Artisans

- kings/rulers - defend the - provider of
because they are polis, as they needs
the ones who are have the
able to fully use passion that
their reason fuels their
fight

• Aristotle
o Common Conception of Justice
a. state of character that compels one to act, do and wish what is just. Conversely, injustice is
that which compels one to act, do and wish what is unjust.
o Two Kinds of Justice
a. Perfect Justice (moral)
Þ justice is perfect because it is our mode of practicing perfect virtue
Þ when you practice virtue perfectly, it leads to perfect justice
Þ prescribes certain conduct – prescribed actions = law
Þ perfect justice is always exercised in relation to others, social, for other’s good
b. Particular Justice
Þ when part of a virtue is practiced and leads to fairness or equality
Þ Kinds:
¨ Distributive Justice
ë Regulation of distributions of honor or money or other divisible assets
of the community, which may be divided among its members in equal
or unequal shares
ë The mean between gain and loss
¨ Corrective Justice
¨ Justice in Exchange
ë Reciprocity binds the parties, but it is not mere reciprocity. It may be
evil for good, evil for evil, good for evil, good for good.
o Justice = based on virtue, is teleological (function), involves giving each person what they are due, and
thus discriminates according to virtue relevant. The polis dictates the virtue required of an individual or
thing therefore, membership in a polis is important.
MEDIEVAL
• Christian Philosophy
o Nicholas Wolsterstorff’s Analysis of Medieval Theories of Law
§ Rights
• where do rights come from? who gives rights?
• brought about by the ordering of the parts of an institution
• Justice is a natural right
o what does this mean?
§ The Case of Franciscans’ Vow of Poverty
• After the death of St Francis, disputes arose within the Order, about the precise nature of
the Franciscan vow of poverty,
• In the bull that he issued, 1230, Pope Gregory IX declared that the Franciscans could
have use of the things that they needed but should not own anything, either individually
or communally
o What does it mean for natural right to be an inherent right?
o Biblical Narratives of Justice
§ Tsedeqa
§ Mishpat
• just God
§ Amos
• cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed; defend the orphan,
plead for the widow
o Divine right
§ does God have inherent rights?
• yes
o do those inherent rights extend to us?
§ implied inherent rights for humans because humans were created by
God in his own image
• Islamic Philosophy
o Justice = everyone has their own place and function, that is not discrimination.
§ equivalence not equality
• each group of individuals are treated in ways true to their nature, not identically
• TELEOLOGICAL
• Jewish Philosophy
o Conclusion:
§ Yahweh is committed to justice.
§ If we commit injustice, we wrong God
§ God holds us accountable for our actions and inactions

MODERN & CONTEMPORARY

• Libertarian Justice
o HOSPERS (Libertarian Manifesto)
§ Basically explains what libertarianism is, by introducing it in contrast to liberalism.
• Libertarianism
o the state or the government does not interfere with the citizens’ private life
o HISTORY
§ Liber = Free; Libertas = Freedom
§ Liberalism vs Libertarianism
• Both: emphasize freedom of individuals
• Liberalism = maximum participation of the government is
desired as this guarantees exercise by individuals, basically to
regulate
• Libertarianism = minimal participation of the government
• Libertarianism
 o every person is the owner of his own life, and no one is the owner of anyone
else’s life
§ Captain of my ship, master of my soul — Invictus
§ no one is anyone else’s master, no one is anyone else’s slave
§ other men’s lives are not yours to dispose of
• Rights of the INDIVIDUAL
o Right to Life — any attempt by others to take it away from him or injure him
violates this right
o Right to Liberty — to conduct his life in accordance with the alternatives open to
him without coercion by others (ex. suffrage, assembly, etc.)
o Right to Property — to work, to sustain life (his and others like family), and to
retain the fruits of labor
• The Role of the Government
o Government
§ most dangerous institution known to man
• throughout history, gov’t has violated human rights more than
any individual or group could do
o murder, slavery, forced labor, torture, robbery, pillaging
§ Libertarian’s take on Government’s Role:
• Protector of Human Rights
o all such laws that protect the rights of humans are 👍
§ right to life
§ right to liberty
§ right to property
• Laws and How They Affect Liberty
o (1) Laws protecting individuals against themselves — laws against fornication,
alcohol, drugs
o (2) Laws protecting individuals against aggressions by others — laws against
murder, robbery, fraud
o (3) law requiring people to help one another (Welfare)
§ LIBERTARIANS:
• Reject (1) because behavior that harms no one is strictly the
individual’s own affair
• Allow (2) because the gov’t sole function is to protect people
from being encroached by others
• Reject (3) because it is moral cannibalism, as no one should be
forced by the law to help others, not even to tell them the time of
the day, more so to give then a percent of their salary.
o STERBA (From Liberty to Welfare)
§ Book — a reaction to Libertarianism, positing that it is morally imperative to have welfare rights
and a welfare state.
• Libertarian Position against Welfarism/ Welfare State
o any form of welfarism is an intrusion of the rights
o Welfarism is incompatible with Libertarianism
o Robert Nozick
§ Role of state = night watchman
o Murray Rothard
§ no justification for a state to be a welfare state even with full consent
o Strongest Argument of Libertarians against Welfare State
§ absolute rights (right to life, liberty, property), nothing can justify the
government taking their property etc for welfare
§ they call for a complete abolition of governmental welfare and reliance
on private aid [because private aid does not involve imposition on the
people]
• Libertarianism Approaches
o First Approach (Herbert Spencer)
§ liberty as absence of constraints
§ liberty is the ultimate right
o John Locke
§ liberty is absence of constraints in the exercise of fundamental rights
 §rights including right to life or self-ownership and right to property to be
the ultimate political ideal
§ all other rights come from these fundamental rights
• Sterba’s position: there is such a thing as a Right to Welfare. And the state’s role is to be
a Welfare state — the provider and protector of welfare.
o Welfarism
§ state takes something from the rich to give to the poor (forms: taxation,
confiscation)
o Sterba’s Arguments for Welfare Right and Welfare State
§ The rich have more than enough resources to satisfy their basic needs.
The poor lack the resources to meet their most basic nutritional needs
even though they have tried all the means available to them that
libertarians regard as legitimate for acquiring such resources
§ Under the aforementioned circumstances, libertarians maintain that the
rich should have the liberty to use such resources to satisfy their luxury
needs, if they so wish.
• Libertarians recognize that this liberty might as well be enjoyed
at the expense of the basic nutritional needs of the poor
• They would allow that it would be nice if the rich shared their
surplus resources to the poor
o HOWEVER, this must not be coercively required,
because the liberty of the poor is not thought to be at
stake in such conflict situations
§ Argument components
• Moral imperative
o The liberty of the poor (the liberty to take from the
surplus resources of others ) to meet one’s basic
nutritional needs is morally preferable to the liberty of
the rich (liberty to use one's surplus resources for
luxury purposes)
• Ought implies can
o It would be unreasonable to require one to do
something they do not have the means or power to do,
or what would involve a great sacrifice.
§ Lockean Libertarianism
• Liberty = being unconstrained by others from doing what one
has a right to do
• Most important rights in terms of liberty are:
o Right to life – right not to be killed unjustly
o Right to property – right to acquire goods and
resources through initial acquisition or voluntary
agreement
§ IMPLICATION: The poor’s right to life is violated
when rich prevent them from getting what they
require to meet basic nutritional needs, they are
not given liberty
o Conclusion:
§ The rich can afford to relinquish their right to property (surplus), as it is
within their power and it is reasonable because it would not cause their
death; the poor cannot afford relinquish their liberty to take what they
need from the rich, because while it is in their power, it is unreasonable
to require this of them as it essentially asks them to starve to death.
§ Welfare state and Welfare rights are morally necessary. Only a Welfare
state can solve problems necessitated by the provision of welfare.
§ MACHAN (Nonexistence of Welfare Rights)
• Machan’s Counter Arguments
o these rights to property and life do not entitle one to receive from others the
goods and resources necessary for preserving their own (right to welfare)
 o there is no such thing as a right to welfare as it violates the basic rights of other
people
o it is possible for people to pursue their goal without thwarting others’ goals
o in a system that legally protects and preserves property, there will be cases
where a rich person prevents a poor person from taking what belongs to her
§ Q: Have the rich, then, contributing to the result, killed the poor or simply
let them die, and if they have killed they have done so unjustly?
• When people defend their property, they protect themselves
from the intrusive acts of some other person, acts that may
deprive of something that they have a right to or which the other
has no right
o Lockean Libertarianism is based on the belief that virtually all people are willing
and capable to make a headway in life and in a free society
§ Exceptional cases must be taken care of by voluntary social institutions,
not by the government, which guards self-consistent individual rights
o Sterba has a lack of explanation why people experience circumstances that
make them unable or have little opportunity to flourish
§ Modern political philosophy characterizes human beings as being
passive, unable to initiate their own conduct, and moved by innate
drives or environmental stimuli
• Rich are well-off because of their initiative, poor are badly off
because they have failed in significant ways
• Unless man changes, socialism can do no more than to
socialize poverty – make everyone poor.
§ NARVESON (Contracting for Liberty)
• PROBLEM: How can libertarians be made to share rights with others without force?
• SOLUTION: Adopting the libertarian program and contracting libertarian rights following
the principles of social contract
• Why Other Theories of Distributive Justice Fail
o Virtue theories — their ideas of virtues are never shared by all
o Appeals to authority — useless because they are circular arguments
o Natural law – unclear as it sets limits to what is possible but can prescribe
nothing
• Social contract
o Reciprocal conditionalizing of behavior
o Involves commitment from all concerned
o Necessary for liberty
§ Liberty cannot be sensibly regarded as an intrinsic value
• Liberty is valuable because it is necessary to get other things
that one values
• Libertarian Idea as Contractually Grounded When…
o Libertarianism is best rule for everybody in the way of general restrictions on
behavior
o No other of arriving at the virtue in question is plausible
• Against Welfarism Conclusion
o It would still effectively be considered as coercion, as rational people will still
perceive it as being forced to help others they will not help if they had the choice
and vice versa
o Welfare liberal guarantee is a delusion – absence of starvation is achieved by
ample supply, provided for by libertarians and generous hearts
o Security of property and freedom of exchange will ensure efficacy of people’s
well-being
o Systems biased towards the incapable are systems that perpetuate poverty with
no compensating advantages