Justice is relative and determined by those with power

I believe Scott summed up Cicero’s “The Defense of Injustice adequately, so I will not spend much time on it. For introduction’s sake, however, a brief synopsis: In Cicero’s “The Defense of Injustice,” the character Philus is prodded to argue a case for injustice (obviously this is contradictory to many practices). About halfway through his case, he makes the conclusion that the best option regarding injustice is to perform it “if you can get away with it.” This may lead one to believe that Cicero’s character Philus really does value injustice over justice, yet while he is making this case Philus’s rhetoric and examples ultimately prove the opposite—that he values justice over injustice. Moreover, his rhetoric illustrates what many hold to be important aspects of justice.

One point in this piece that I found I could relate to and connect to present day is Cicero’s idea that justice is relative and defined by those in charge. Cicero notes that “…the justice into which we are inquiring is not just something that naturally exists, but a quality that is created by those who are occupied in government.” This is so true. We talked in class about what justice meant, and not a single person could come up with a concrete definition. On top of that, not everyone could agree on what it even entails. We went through many examples and generally could not come up with a consensus about if the particular example was “just” or not. This is true in everyday life as well. Chris brought up the example of the man in Germany who asked for a willing person to be eaten. Both people were in agreement as to what was going to happen, but still people disagree if it was moral or not. Then comes the question about punishing this man. Is it just? He did break a law, but both men were in agreement. “Justice” is such an ambiguous and relative term—how could it “naturally exist” as Cicero mentioned?

Does anyone recall the Uruguayan rugby team that was stranded in the Andes Mountains when their plane crashed in 1972? The team was stranded in extremely cold and hostile conditions for 72 days and had to eat one of their dead companions for survival. Many people would have considered it unjust to punish the team for this act. What makes this different from the man in Germany? One could argue that the rugby team needed to eat for survival and that the person they ate was already dead. Yet in Germany, this act of cannibalism was consensual. Who determines if an act or punishment in response to an act is just or unjust if there are so many different circumstances and situations? Everything is relative.

Another aspect about this idea I agree with is the notion that justice is “a quality that is created by those who are occupied in government.” Let’s face it: whoever controls the means to enforce laws and punish people decides what is just and unjust. We as people may decide that the government or military is wrong in whatever they are doing—we may think it is unjust—but until we can step up and take over or control the means of enforcing and punishing people for disobeying “just” laws, we are only spectators, not creators. Take our government, for example. Many people believe that the death penalty is unjust for various reasons. But the death penalty is still being enforced and carried out. Why? Not because it is necessarily “just”—as mentioned before, justice is too relative to pinpoint—but because we do not control the means of enforcing or getting rid of the way in which “justice” is carried out. Out of a nation of millions of people, only a select few wield this kind of power—the power to determine what is “just” and “unjust.” In summary, justice is relative and those in power are the ones to determine what is just or not.