One of Philus's main points in Cicero's work, "The Defense of Injustice," and, I believe, the main argument given, is that the inconsistency of judicial systems throughout the world should lead us to believe that true justice doesn't really exist. He points out some of the laws that different renowned countries enforced that were in no way in agreement with each other. He also points out that it is wisdom, not justice, that makes individuals and states great.
Due to the writing style of this work, it is somewhat difficult to decipher Cicero's true beliefs. It is obvious that he is in favor of justice, though, as evidenced by the final paragraph. "There will not be different laws now and in the future. Instead there will be one single, everlasting, immutable law, which applies to all nations and all times." Through this, we can deduce that Cicero believes divine justice trumps any systems that man can dream up, and that we are therefore under a perfect and unchanging set of regulations. Personally, I agree with him, but I realize that the current world doesn’t believe that God and his omnipotence are worthy to be placed into law. Surely, some do, but the line between church and state mandates a secular set of laws by which non-believers can co-exist peacefully. I believe we can still conclude that Cicero approves of secular law, despite its inconsistencies. Indeed, in any society that doesn’t have 100% agreement on spiritual matters, it is wrong to ask for 100% compliance. Thus, we must have a way of governing action that relies on systems of the world rather than beliefs of the world. Secular law accomplishes that.
Another interesting point made by Phillus: “No country would not rather be an unjust master than a just slave.” In other words, we would all rather be the bully on the playground than the little kid being picked on. This relates to human nature as it applies to power. The end result is that a law-making body is by nature unjust due to the power which they have accrued. Any “justice” they attempt to enforce is merely thinly veiled exploitation of their subjects. Therefore, all laws are unjust and should not be followed. This argument does have some merit, as the corrupting nature of power is well known. However, the argument falls apart when it is considered that lawmakers should be subject to their own laws. As it is impossible for one to take advantage of himself for his own gain, it should be said that lawmakers would know this and refrain from using their power as a way to get more power.
2 comments:
This post really intrigued me. I have been analyzing Cicero and his writing style for the past week in order to give my presentation,and I noticed that this post argues that, "the main argument given, is that inconsistency of judicial systems throughout the world should lead us to belive that true justice doesn't really exist." On the contrary, I wanted to point out that I see a completely different main point from Cicero's legal writing style. Through the vioces of Philus and Laelius, Cicero presents a poetic examination of justice. With this unbias and thorough approach, Cicero goes above and beyond in order to make his point clear: injustice is not the answer. No matter how diverse, unnatural, etc. one argues justice to be, it can still be concluded that morality and true justice lie within each of us in the form of a conscience.
One point that was made in this post that I agree with and like very much is that, "the current world doesn't believe that God and his omnipotence are worthy to be placed into law." This was a weak part, in my opinion, of Cicero (Laelius') argument. Even so, this argument proved stronger and more striking than Philus' argument for injustice.
"There will not be different laws now and in the future. Instead there will be one single, everlasting, immutable law, which applies to all nations and all times." Through this, we can deduce that Cicero believes divine justice trumps any systems that man can dream up, and that we are therefore under a perfect and unchanging set of regulations."
I wonder whose god he had in mind at the time, whose god we imagine when we read this, and whose interpretation of this immutable sence of justice we will follow.
Post a Comment