Two major streams of thought merge into our understanding of the nature of justice: First: Socrates dialogue about justice in Plato’s The Republic; and, second, justice as a key-feature element in the teaching of the biblical prophets.
Before enlarging on second of these, allow me to prepare the way by means of three citations from William Pitt the Younger (1759 – 1806), British Prime Minister:
First, Pitt declared:
necessity is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. This admirably sums up the stated principle of today’s leadership:
never let a good crisis go to waste. Second:
where the law ends, tyranny begins. This highlights how rapidly society can transit from open Congressional dialogue and decision-making to arbitrary executive edict. Third, regarding authoritarianism,
a long train of these practices has at length unwillingly convinced me that there is something behind the throne greater than the King himself. This recapitulates Plato’s appeal to justice as a transcendent value, yet in a different way and to a different end than Plato intended.
How did our founding fathers come to the understanding of justice as a transcendent ideal which stands above rulers, along with the ideal of an open, free society? The prophet Amos is one of the prime biblical sources of this concept. It is a striking fact that Amos prophesized around 850 BCE, more than four centuries before Socrates’ dialogue on the concept of justice as recounted in
The Republic.
This teaching, which is embedded at the core of our Constitution, has a long history in the West as nations have sought to create free societies. In light of this, I think that it is impossible for America to become post-Christian, unless it adopts a completely different concept of justice -- such as advocated by American Naturalism, or Shariah Law -- which are inimical to the prophetic ideal and contradict the values of the American Constitution.
Amos’ words should be burned into our collective brain:
establish justice in the gate (that is, in the courts);
Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream (
Amos 5:15, 24, RSV). This is the golden text of our heritage regarding justice.
In Hebrew the term Amos uses is
mishpat which means that which is just and is one’s due -- that which is right according to truth -- which Amos pairs with righteousness (
tsadaq) and uprightness (
nakoach).
The reference to righteousness does not refer specifically to God’s holiness, but does carry the meaning of that which is essentially God’s nature and what that righteousness norms: what is due, what is equitable, what is right. Hence the practical application (
Amos 5:14, 15):
seek good (tubh), not evil (ra’a). In short, righteousness reflects the nature of God. He is its author and he expects practices that mirror his righteousness as fulfillment of the covenant between himself and his people.
Consider the entire frame of reference in the terms of which Amos is speaking: the unity of God, the unity of the world, the unity of history, the unity of morality. This is the frame of reference of America’s Constitution.
There is but one true and living God. The created order is a unity of natural laws such that what happens here under certain conditions will happen there under those same conditions. The historical process reflects this stability. The moral law is a constant, there is a real difference between good and evil.
Thus justice is the characteristic of those acts and conditions which are right and equitable in a forensic sense under God’s righteousness. Justice is to render to each person that which is his or her due. Good and Right concern that which is morally right, and Evil and Wrong that which is morally wrong. In their primary sense they do not define that which is culturally expedient or inexpedient. Right and Wrong stand for objective characteristics which attach directly and inalienably to acts and their consequences.
This is what has been subverted by a segment of the American intellectual elite who contend that no value is fixed, that all values are relative and can be shaped to the circumstances and needs of the time.
The contemporary hedonist form of this is American metaphysical Naturalism which, regarding the behavior of all organisms, argues that their behavior, including human behavior, is conditioned solely by the biological and psychological urge to satisfy need. Thus, as one of my professors (an ardent advocate of Naturalism) said, altruism is intellectually and emotionally suicidal. Any object of any interest defines the good and, hence, justice. This principle, enunciated by R. B. Perry, is the foundation of contemporary American moral relativism which, like the soft fascism that pervades current White House practices emerged from the Progressivism of the 1920s.
Add to this our modern version of Epicurean atomism and one arrives full circle at the concept that all of reality has come about by the chance concatenation of atoms and that to attribute mind or purpose or freedom of action within such a structure is sheer nonsense.
Efforts to circumvent this conclusion by adducing a theory that avoids any appeal to the supernatural are chiefly those, like the view of John Rawls who, once he had abandoned his early Protestant faith, advocated a communitarian model in which the community both shapes and is shaped by its individuals. Ideally, the community arrives at a system of equal basic rights, liberty, and opportunity – but anyone’s success must serve the interests of those who are worst off. Why rational people should choose these principles in view of the behavioral metaphysical model of need-satisfaction as the prime motivator of action is, for me, not clear. It appears to be a notion of fairness which is not only the rational choice of a society but in the long run is also the principle that is in each person’s self-interest.
Christians who believe in the transcendental ideal of justice do not thereby believe, nor should they believe, that they can therefore design an ideal society that is just and is in the best interests of all. Rather, they believe that a standard higher than their own understanding on any particular issue -- the righteousness of God -- must constantly monitor and norm our individual actions and policy decisions. This is the force of William Pitt’s statement:
there is something behind the throne greater than the King himself.
It is time for Americans to think beyond the ideology of the people they have enthroned.
