This year we have read many
different philosophers definitions of justice, but not until now have we read
anything about there not being a true definition of justice. At first, the idea of
there not being a definition of justice was unappealing, but after looking into
Kelsen’s argument further I found that he has some very good points. Kelsen brings
up the point that there is a difference between values and fact and justice
more often than not deals with values than fact; because of this, values are
determined by judgment. Since rational people have different views on things it
is hard to set a true definition of justice. This is not to say that because
people have different views that there is no justice or injustice, just that
you can’t make a definite definition on something that is arrived at by judgment.
Do you agree with Kelsen that there is no true definition of justice? If you
disagree what philosophers definition of justice to you most agree with, or
what is your own definition of justice?
Hallie, I had the same approach to Kelsen as well. At first I was not able to accept his lack of definition but as I read it more I realize that he is not avoiding defining it but instead is stressing the differences rational people maintain. Everyone has different experiences and different backgrounds and what seems fair to one person might not be in the eyes of another. I like Kelsen's view that it is tricky to take judgment out of defining justice. However at the same time I think it is important to have a more rigid definition in our society because more problems arise out of grey areas. There's always going to be room for interpretation in cases of justice but I think it is important for members of society to have a clearer idea of what justice is in order for the society to function.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you both. I think that it is difficult to define justice in such an absolute manner, as Kelsen says, because there is always going to be two rational people with two different sides of the same, or at least very similar, story. As Esha, was stating however, it is important that there be some sort of general and communal understanding of justice in order to not have chaos. With this need, I think we need to look to other philosphers who frame a way in which to create and make these just laws such as Rawls in his Original Position situation where everyone is making laws behind a veil ignorance.
ReplyDeleteI agree that at first, the thought of there not being a definition of justice was a little unappealing. Kelsen does make good points about the differences between values and facts and how we relate those to justice. It is given that people are going to have many different views and opinions. I suppose I partly agree with Kelsen that you cannot have a true definition of justice, because justice is often based off personal judgment. However, like Esha and Colleen said, it is necessary for there to be some broad, general understanding of justice.
ReplyDelete