“Please give it back to me.”
“Why?”
“Because you borrowed it an it’s mine.”
Have you ever been in this kind of situation? Imagine that you have
borrowed a calculator from a friend. Now the friend wants you to
return it. What is the just thing for you to do?
I.
Read the four alternatives below, think about the situation,
then write the letter representing your answer in the space
provided:
A. Try to convince your friend that you still need it.
B. Keep it as long as you can; after all, you need a calculator
C. Return it—the calculator is your friend’s, not yours.
D. You can always make another friend; keep the calculator.
Write your answer here: ____________
Remember, the question is, “What is the just thing to do?”—not, “What do I feel like
doing in this situation?” If you chose A or B, then it seems that you think your own
interests are more important than respecting your friend’s interests or property. If you
chose D, you value things more than friendship—or, at least, you value this thing more than
keeping this friend.
Most people would choose C. The reason why is stated in C: The calculator is not
yours. Therefore, even if you want to keep it for some reason, you ought to return it if the
calculator—or anything you borrow—belongs to another person.
What does this example tell us about justice?
In fact, just what is justice? This question is almost
as old as philosophy itself. Philosophers have been
asking this question since the time of Plato, the
famous Greek philosopher who lied from 427 to 347
B.C. However, the above example, which is taken
from Book I of Plato’s dialogue, the Republic,
suggests that justice can be easily defined: It is
treating other people fairly, In short, to be just is to
be fair; so, whatever is borrowed should always be
returned since that is what is fair in this case.
Is this a good definition? Let’s change the example in a few ways (as
Plato has Socrates do in the Republic). Imagine that an adult in your
family borrows a weapon from a friend, and between the time that the
weapon is borrowed and the time the friend wants it returned, the
friend becomes mentally unstable. Now, according to the original
definition, it would be just to return what has been borrowed—in this
case, to return the weapon—since the definition says that whatever is
borrowed should always be returned.
But, what do you think would be the just thing to do in this case?
II. Here are four alternatives. Place the letter for your answer in the space provided
below:
E. Keep the weapon; the friend is unstable, and what the friend will do with the
weapon once it is returned is unknown.
F. Return the weapon; after all, it is the friend’s property
G. Talk to your philosophy and ask for the true definition of justice. Once you know
this definition, then you will know what is should be done.
H. Try to get professional help for the friend.
Answer here: ____________
Let’s briefly look at the answers:
i.
ii.
iii.
Answer (H) suggests that the friend is important. Although this attitude is good,
it does not really help answer the question about the just thing to do in this
instance. (Are you sure you know what it means to be a friend? See Question
#2.)
Answer (F) shows that you understand the original definition of justice and that
you want to apply that definition. But, would it truly be just to return a weapon
to someone if that individual were insane?
Answer (E) eliminates the harmful consequences that might occur if an insane
person had a weapon. However, to keep the weapon when it belongs to another
person violates our definition of justice. Can a person act unjustly in order to do
something good? Somehow this does not sound correct.
Did you select answer (G)? If you did, then one philosopher you could talk to is Socrates,
Plato’s teacher and the principal character in most of Plato’s dialogues. The republic
analyzes the meaning of justice—but it is a lengthy attempt, about 300 pages! So, it seems
safe to say that, whatever justice is, it will not be easily understood and described. Still, we
can make a start in the direction that Plato thinks we should be heading.
“I think the first duty of society is justice.”
-Alexander Hamilton, statesman
For Further Thought—Please answer all questions below:
1. Should you be just to your enemies as well as to your friends? Why or why not?
2. Can you be unjust to yourself? Explain your response.
3. If the answer to 2 is yes, then can you also be just to yourself? Explain your
response.
Plato thought that true justice begins in ourselves and that it is important to know
ourselves as well as possible so that we can be just to ourselves whenever we speak, act, or
make a choice. If we do know ourselves by thinking about who we are and what we want
and how we hope to spend our lives, then it should be possible, eventually, to discover at
least something about the nature of justice.
Keep this conclusion in mind as you continue to explore philosophy. When you ask
yourself a question, especially a philosophical question, and then try to answer it, you are
learning more about yourself. And, if Plato is right, you are then learning more about
justice.
Of course, you are also being a philosopher!