"People would not know the name of Justice, if unjust things
did not exist"
(Heraclitus, cited by Murray, 1889)
Justice and injustice are the greatest dualism. Neither justice
nor injustice is the same for all people and all cultures. Namely,
what is justice for ones, may be punishable for others. The
hibernating human nature from the earliest times required
organization of society by canons, laws, tribal rules, written and
unspoken. The Old Testament is based on laws that prescribe
very strict norms in behavior and everyday life. To respect this
law and such a life lies in this law righteousness (eye for eye,
tooth for tooth), but in the present time we can not recognize
such justice. In many cultures, justice was sought and
sanctioned by "blood vengeance", therefore not by law. Why?
Does this mean that the justice is in the blood revenge, and
that the law is unjust? Or, it means that one are looking for
justice by blood revenge, and other the laws. If we are looking
for justice in the laws, then it is important who and how puts
these laws into effect.
The Supreme Law is a Constitution. The Constitution is a
guarantee of human freedom and a reflection of the will of the
people. The coexistence of the creation of the state and of the
law, the creation of a state-right order necessarily implies the
existence of some mandatory rules that constitute the basis
upon which both the state and the right are built; The
constitution in the formal sense is a written act of the greatest
legal force regulating the basis of state and social organization
of one country.
There is not only political power to adopt the constitution, but
the spirit of the nation, its perception of morals, customs,
habits , public opinion. There is a difference between the
constitution that brings people, and the government cannot
change, and the constitution that brings the people, and the
government can change. This is the difference between
constitutional and legislative power. It is constitutionally
constitutive and legally constituted. So the state has to give
authority to manage it, to keep it, but it is a question to who
as it would not be subject to abuse.
Plato considered that the state should be governed by
rulers-philosophers, because philosophical education has
developed their sense of reason. The ruler, can not be a
ruler before his fiftieth year of life. Plato seeks to theoretically
establish a just state. A just state would be the one in which
each would have its own place of work. This division of work
towards Plato is based on his ontology and psychology. A
just state can only be the one who in some way realizes the
idea of righteousness. A well-organized state must be as
close to the conceptual empire. It is clear from this that such
a state must be led by philosophers, for they are the only
ones capable of acquiring knowledge of the world of ideas
and knowing what is right and what is not.
Philosophers can only become those who possess the
mental part of the soul, capable of maintaining in harmony
the other two parts of the soul, feeling and rationality, and to
be governed by them. Those who have developed only a
reasonable part of the soul, who are therefore not capable of
philosophical knowledge, but are reasonable and heartfelt,
their virtue is courage and should be the guardians of the
state (Hsu, 2007).
Socrates, like Platon, elaborated the whole ideal state plan
(ideal in terms of righteousness). His ideal state would be
govern by the best people, so it would be aristocratic. Plato
points out that people and their characters are the ones that
make up the state. Even states can be: timocratic,
democratic, oligarchical, tyrannical ... "Every government,
make the laws in its favor: the democracy of the democratic,
the tyrant gives monarchical laws, and so are the other
authorities" (Plato, cited by Jowett, 2008).
Hsum H. (2007). The Harmony of the Soul. Humanitas
Taiwanica, 67, 139-159.
Jowett, B. (2008). The Republic. Kansas: Digireads
Patrick, G. T. W. (1889). The Fragments of the Work of
Heraclitus of Ephesus on Nature; Translated from the Greek
Text of Bywater, with an Introduction Historical and Critical,
Toronto: Baltimore N. Murray.