Axis i winter has come! It's time for fate to be less charming. The charge, it is very cold, it is even more beautiful. I love wondering yak purhaє biliy fluffy snizhok, curling the booths, trees, paths and everything with a feathery feather. We have a good day for such a day and we clean it up. My fathers love to walk in the foxes. You can know a little bit there Yizhak, and you
In the painting by D. Shmarinov, we see the personification of the harsh Russian winter and the hard child labor of the peasants. In the distance of the hero of the picture there are lonely Christmas trees, drifts of snow on the ground, and it seems that it is cold outside. The impression of the sadness of nature is created. The main character paintings-little Vlas. From clothes he is wearing a hat and old rags, which hardly keep the boy warm. The boy is leading a horse with a sleigh. The horse bowed its head, thereby expressing its weariness.
I. A. Krylov is a famous Russian poet and fabulist. His short satirical works reflected not only many events public life XIX century, but also the poet's desire to make people cleaner, kinder, more honest. It seems to me that this is exactly what I.A.Krylov was striving for, in whose fables, as in a transparent mirror, we can see not only our shortcomings, but also the ways to correct them. The moral of the fable "The Wolf and the Lamb" is already contained in the very first
In the novel "A Hero of Our Time" Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov touches upon the same problems that often sound in his lyrics: why smart and energetic people cannot find a place for themselves in life, why do they "grow old in inaction"? The novel consists of five parts: Bela, Maxim Maksimych, Taman, Princess Mary, Fatalist. Each of them is an independent work and at the same time is a part of the novel. Central to all n
Ivan Firsov's painting "Young Painter" is one of the first works of Russian genre painting. The plot of this picture is simple. In a spacious studio flooded with even light, a boy-artist sits in front of an easel and enthusiastically paints a portrait of a girl. Adult woman, mother or older sister, persuades the little model to sit quietly and maintain a pose. At the feet of the artist stands an open box of paints, on the table - the usual props
V. Bryusov's poem "To the Young Poet" was written on July 15, 1896. Already the title of the work indicates its form - dedication. In general, dedication is traditional for Russian classical poetry. Let us recall at least such works as “To the book. Vyazemsky and V. L. Pushkin "by V. A. Zhukovsky," To a friend poet "," Poet "by A. S. Pushkin," Russian writer "by N. A. Nekrasov. V.A. Bryusov continues this tradition in his work.
A meeting with Tatyana, acquaintance with Lensky occurs at Onegin in the spring and summer of 1820 - he is already 24 years old, he is not a boy, but an adult man, especially compared to the eighteen-year-old Lensky. It is not surprising, because he treats Lensky a little patronizingly, looks like an adult at his "youthful fever and youthful delirium." How absurd and - outwardly, at least - insignificant is the quarrel between Onegin and Lensky. And we want to believe: still
In everyday life, we’re skinny, either to learn, or to practice. Aleksei insist that we go back and forth, we pick up all the time. We saw wonderful weather around the last weekend, and we all went to nature at once. Shukati didn’t come to the scene, since we have a lot of beautiful scenes. We shook off on galyavinі bіlya lіsu. I have a picture in front of my eyes. The clearing was a big one, we were running around, having fun, forgetting about all everyday life. I was old, scho
The poem by M. Yu. Lermontov "Mtsyri" is a romantic work. Its action takes place in the Caucasus, where proud rebellious highlanders live, where austere monasteries with an ascetic way of life and way of life keep their age-old secrets, where, embracing like two sisters, the streams of Aragva and Kurynes are sending their powerful streams from the mountains. The ruins of the monastery, the pillars of the collapsed gates, the ruins of the church, the gravestones, the inscription of which speaks to the glory of the past ..., in such a setting
In literature, the technique of opposing the main character to another character is often used in order to even more clearly distinguish the characters. Lermontov also uses this technique in his novel A Hero of Our Time. The main character - Pechorin - is a bright personality, however, Grushnitsky's appearance on the stage helps to reveal many of his qualities. The confrontation between Pechorin and Grushnitsky is shown in the chapter "Princess Mary". The story is told on behalf of Pechorin. He
The concept of justice, along with such ethical categories as truth, truth, goodness, have been part of a person's worldview since time immemorial. These concepts-values have long and deeply penetrated all forms public conscience, acting as a goal and regulator of the most important value-semantic ideas and concepts.
On different stages development philosophical thought judgments about them were often given a sublime tone. So, Socrates, affirming the connection between virtue, wisdom, beauty, reason, led to the understanding of justice as following wisdom, true knowledge, order of things, laws. Asserting that “justice and every other virtue is wisdom,” and “just deeds and in general all deeds based on virtue are beautiful and good,” he thereby gave justice a rational, ethical characterization as a kind of uniform measure of human deeds.
Also for Plato justice is "more precious than any gold." He considers it to be the most beautiful, the greatest good that should be possessed. Plato got its further development and the political and legal aspect of justice. Extracting, like other philosophers of antiquity, the concept of justice from the principle of the structure of the cosmos, in accordance with which each person and each thing has its place and function assigned to the impersonal universal law, he drew an analogy between the relationships in nature and in human society, arguing that maintaining a given order, harmony, both in relationships with nature and in human community, fair and wise.
In his main essay "The State", where important attention is paid to the study of the concept of justice, he considers the state from the point of view of the manifestation of specific functions that have arisen on the basis of the division of labor, consisting of three estates, giving:
1) food - farmers, artisans and merchants, which in a person means: in one manifestation - greed, and in another - moderation;
2) protection - wars and officials who, thanks to their upbringing, are able to defend the state, maintain obedience to its laws, protect its dignity, which in a person, by analogy, corresponds to ardor and courage;
3) teaching is philosophers, people of science who, by virtue of their knowledge of the true good, establish laws, educate assistants and govern the entire state, which in a person corresponds to reason and wisdom.
According to Plato, the correctness of life, both in the state and in an individual person, lies in the fact that each of the three parts does "its own thing", precisely fulfills its intended task: one is to engage in the sciences and govern the state, the other is to conscientiously fulfill the laws and bravely to defend the fatherland, the third - to take care of the necessary materials and means and obey the rulers. It is in “harmony”, the coordination of these three essential components of the state that its perfection lies, which Plato calls justice: “the whole is justice”, “justice will be - and will make the state just - the dedication of all classes”, “... each individual person must do something one of what is needed in the state, and at the same time exactly what he, by his natural inclinations, is most capable of ”. This is justice. That is, for Plato, in the understanding of justice, there is no element of equalizing different social groups. Justice is expressed in the devotion of all estates to their cause, in the fact that everyone fulfills the duties destined to him, and therefore, according to Plato, justice cannot mean equality.
The opinion of Aristotle... For him, the central concept that characterizes justice is "proportionality" as the principle of organizing a reasonable balance. Aristotle for the first time divides justice into two forms according to the types of implementation:
1) equalizing justice, which is based on the principle of equality in the possession of goods; and
2) distributing justice, in accordance with the principles of which, one receives more and the other less, depending on his merits. That is, in the distribution according to "merit" is seen the essence of justice, understood as the general principle of retribution.
In connection with the above, it should be noted that Plato and Aristotle in their concepts rely on the recognition of inequality as the basis of the principle of justice. They believe that each thing or person has its own, corresponding sphere of activity and influence, which is unfair to transgress, and some people, due to their character and inclinations, have more opportunities than others. In this case, if they enjoy a greater share of happiness, there is no injustice. Thus, the thinkers of antiquity, raising questions of justice, linking them with such synthetic concepts as wisdom, beauty, harmony and refracting them through the problems of equality, inequality, state, law, politics, created theoretical prerequisites for the development of further judgments about justice, which they found its manifestation in the subsequent history of the development of this concept, reflecting the originality historical era, philosophical school and its social and class functions.
The theme of the connection between justice and law, the problem of equality and inequality, politics and ethics finds its development in the works of the philosophers of the Renaissance and Modern times. So, F. Bacon spontaneously protesting against the etatization of the idea of justice in the conditions of a bourgeois state, and after him, T. Hobbes asserts that justice is a natural law, and the state and power “are just appendages of justice: if it were possible to implement justice in some other way, then they would not have been to implement justice in some other way, then there would be no need for them. " According to Bacon, justice consists in not doing to another what you do not wish for yourself, to be indulgent. He argued that justice is what unites people and serves as the basis for legal relationship... Hobbes, creating his concept of "social contract", argued that justice is worth as a legal retribution.
Hegel reduces justice to a legal phenomenon that has a state-legislative origin. He argued that justice constituted something great in civil society presupposes the establishment of good laws that "lead to the prosperity of the state," and those rulers who gave their people a collection of laws, "committed by this a great act of justice." Hegel believes that law, legal obligations should be combined "with the desire to act justly for the sake of justice", which in turn "requires to consider others equal to oneself." That is Hegel and in the concept of equality, finds the most important component of justice. This he believed should be reflected in the constitution, which, being "existing justice", includes equality and freedom as its final goal and result.
V philosophical ideas that period the moral justification legal system, its identification in the aspect of justice received the most vivid expression in I. Kant... He turns his understanding of justice primarily to those in power and associates it with duty, conscience.
A peculiar approach to understanding justice is characteristic of Russian philosophical thought and, above all, is its connection with the concepts of truth, truth, as well as their derivatives: a righteous life, a just person, a just society, true freedom, faith, love. This connection was highlighted by many Russian philosophers. Among them: N.K. Mikhailovsky, A.S. Khomyakov, I. V. Kireevsky, V.S. Soloviev and others. This understanding was associated with their inherent common desire for a holistic cognition of reality by the entire human being, for the complete reproduction of the entire spiritual and moral experience of people, including not only conscious-sensory experience, but also the experience of conscience, aesthetic feeling and religious-mystical intuition ...
For example, V.S. Soloviev defended the idea of recognizing for each person his own, his own value - the right to existence and the greatest prosperity. This idea, taken in its universality, he generalizes as "truth and justice: it is true that other beings are homogeneous and similar to me, and it is fair that I treat them as myself." Defining his attitude to the problem of equality, V.S. Soloviev believes: “The moral principle in the form of justice does not require material or qualitative equality of all subjects, single and collective, but only that, with necessary and desirable differences, something unconditional and uniform for all is preserved - the meaning of each as an end in itself, that is, as that that life cannot be made as a means for other people's purposes ”. That is, it is fair, from his point of view, not to allow the imposition of someone else's will on another, and also violence against a person from anyone's side is unacceptable. His rule is not to offend anyone.
A close understanding of justice reveals and A. Schopenhauer... He emphasizes the inextricable unity of justice and truth, their coincidence in the definition is true human relations and notes that the opposite phenomenon "injustice or untruth always consists in hurting another", in infringement of his rights and dignity. While “justice requires truthfulness in relation to everyone” and, accordingly, any deviations from the truth, “any lie” is, as a rule, injustice.
In general, in modern foreign philosophical and sociological literature, the problem of justice is presented a wide range different currents. Thus, representatives of the liberal-conservative trend are characterized by a desire for individualism and denial of the role of the state. This concept identifies justice with the adaptation of the individual to the law, denies the existence of the objective content of justice, emphasizes its subjective nature as a purely moral value. F. Hayek in his writings gives a solid refutation of the foundations of social reformist policy in the spirit of the theory of the "welfare state". Based in his theory on market methods of regulating economic and political life, he nevertheless recognizes that the dictate of the market, due to its competitiveness, poses a threat to the freedom of the individual. But free distribution, if it goes without violence and deception, will be fair.
The concept of R. Nozick is based on the absolutization of the individual's property rights. According to his theory, property, the benefits of an individual is an expression of justice, if only they are acquired in a legal way. State intervention is allowed if property is created illegally.
main idea another major western direction in the theory of justice - utilitarian - is that a society is just when its basic institutions are organized to achieve the greatest number benefits summed up for all members of society. At the same time, for example, according to Franken, a society is just if it provides all its members with a minimum of benefits and each person has the opportunity, making efforts, to achieve great success, receiving correspondingly more benefits. Barrow believes that in the interests of the common good, freedom can be limited.
The basic idea of J. Rawls's theory of justice is that justice is the object of an agreement. Those involved in social cooperation should jointly choose, in a united joint action, principles that include the requirement of “equality in the prescription of fundamental rights and responsibilities” and the provision that social and economic inequalities, for example, in wealth and power, are fair. if only it leads to compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the less successful members of society, "which would allow" to arouse the desire for cooperation in everyone, including those whose position is lower. "
Social contract, allowing various Political Views, requires the fulfillment of a prerequisite - the recognition of the need for the consent of individuals with the norms, principles that will restrict their supposed internal freedom. According to J. Rawls, a social contract can serve in this case as an adequate model for deriving the principles of justice, and the honesty of the agreement in it is ensured by the agreement of its participants with the accepted principles to which they will obey in the future - “the principles of justice can be achieved as such principles that could be chosen by rational individuals. " Therefore, this theory is called "justice as fairness."
In the Marxist concept, social relations and their features that arise at various stages of the development of society are put forward as a criterion of justice. According to the concept, if social relations are in accordance with historical necessity, correspond to the level of development of the productive forces of society, and, therefore, contribute to its progress, then they can be considered fair, but if they cease to serve as a factor in the development of society, its productive forces, then they begin to appear unjust ... This understanding of justice can be presented in the most general view.
If we develop this idea, then it is clear that at different stages of the development of society this general principle can acquire various forms its expression, giving grounds for highlighting social justice of a special level. That is, when the productive forces have their own specific concrete historical features of development that set the quality public relations, not always equally desirable for different social groups, classes of society, then the understanding of social justice will take on a relative character, due to the emergence of different socio-class assessments of the same social phenomena and events.
Further, we can single out the social justice of a single, private level, which means moments of social justice associated with specific people, social groups, individual facts of people's life, associated both with the personal characteristics of a person, as well as with a profession, qualifications, nationality, etc., always occurring within the framework of a concrete historical epoch, carrying its features, and therefore also the relative nature of their assessments. Allocation of three levels of justice: general, special and individual allows you to obtain the appropriate criteria of justice: in relation to humanity as a whole, in relation to specific social groups, classes, stages of development of society; and with regard to specific life situations and the actions of people.
For a deeper understanding of the category of justice, it is important to consider its relationship with such phenomena of social life and consciousness as equality, law, freedom, duty, etc.
Thus, many philosophers in their works made a close connection between justice and equality. For example, Hegel believed that justice "requires you to consider others equal to yourself." J. Rawls' principles of justice have a slightly different connotation in relation to equality. While admitting the idea of the possible socio-economic inequality of people in society, he believes that in order to achieve justice, it is important to correct the situation in favor of the more disadvantaged. The tendency to link justice to inequality has its roots in ancient Greek philosophical thought, which was discussed earlier.
The founders of materialist dialectics paid considerable attention to the problem of the relationship between justice and equality. Emphasizing the need to distinguish between equality in the sense of physical strength and mental abilities, V.I. Lenin wrote: "... when socialists talk about equality, they always understand by it social equality, the equality of social status, and in no way the equality of the physical and mental abilities of individuals." Also, in their opinion, justice cannot be reduced to equality. F. Engels wrote in this connection: “… it is absurd to pass off the position“ equality = justice ”as the highest principle and the last truth. Equality exists only in the framework of the opposite to inequality, justice - only in the framework of the opposite to injustice. "
In the Marxist concept, the problem of the connection between justice and equality receives a fairly deep study. According to her, social inequality, being a consequence and an inalienable attribute of the social-class structure of society, which has arisen as a result of the division of labor, can manifest itself in different ways from the point of view of justice at different stages of the development of society. If to the existing social inequality in society is added social injustice, expressed in the impossibility further development its members, then a greater or lesser crisis sets in. The resolution of the latter presupposes either some organizational measures, structural adjustments, the adoption of new laws, etc., or cardiac, revolutionary organizational and structural transformations of society, giving scope for the development of productive forces and a significant margin of patience in relation to the inevitable social inequality in these conditions ... True social equality, in accordance with the concept, can be inherent in a classless society, and therefore cannot but be accompanied by true social justice.
Thus, the concept of equality and inequality, being in close relationship with the category of justice, does not give its unambiguous characteristics and presupposes taking into account specific historical conditions and many others: socio-economic, political, ethical circumstances in the analysis and assessment of certain phenomena of social life. ...
Another important category closely related to justice is law. Their connection is sometimes so close that they can human consciousness practically identified. The unity of justice and law has been repeatedly noted by many philosophers. So, Hegel, emphasizing the direct connection of justice with law, which is the result of state-legislative activity, noted that the rulers who gave their people a collection of laws, and therefore a certain right, "committed these great act of justice."
But in philosophical thought, a different interpretation of the relationship between law and justice is also possible. For example, F. Nietzsche considers it legitimate to say that “people are not equal - that's what justice says. And what I want they would not have the right to want ”, i.e. since people are not equal, they cannot have equal rights, which is consonant with the ideas of Plato and Aristotle. Apparently, implying the fact that history knows a lot of cruel and merciless legislative acts, Nietzsche wrote: “I do not like your cold justice; the executioner and his cold knife are always seen in the eyes of your judges. "
Sometimes the connection between justice and law has an extended interpretation, including natural, abstract, state, civil, moral and other law. For example, according to A. Schopenhauer, the requirement of justice can be implemented by the state, since its only purpose is to protect individuals from each other, and the whole from external enemies. The state, introducing a legal and legislative institution, the meaning of which, on the one hand, is to consolidate moral norms in the actions of people with the aim of not committing injustice, and on the other, to protect against such actions of people that no one is obliged to endure, since no one should be subjected to injustice, creates a whole body of laws as a positive right, so that “no one should tolerate injustice; the goal of moral jurisprudence is that no one should commit injustice. "
As a kind of generalization of the views of previous authors, you can cite the statement A. Camus: “There is no justice in society without natural or civil law on which it is based. Where law is exercised without delay, sooner or later there will be justice based on it ”.
The right that guarantees the equality of all before the law and the equality of the law for all comes in as a real expression of justice. But law, being a support for justice in society, at the same time itself sometimes needs to be supported by justice, which here can take the form of duty, duty. That is, relying only on his own rights and forgetting about responsibilities, a person will inevitably violate the rights of others, thereby introducing injustice into social relations.
Speaking about the relationship between justice and law, one should bear in mind that legal principles and legality become a prerequisite for justice if these norms express the will of the people. If this principle is violated, whether in the field of legislative, judicial or executive power, it becomes difficult to talk about justice. Moreover, it is important to take into account such a nuance. If law is inalienable from the state and protected by its apparatus, then justice, acting as an ethical category in the form of norms of behavior, an assessment of principles that are difficult to fix in legislation, can be protected mainly by public opinion. Hence the conclusion follows: correctly formed public opinion- a certain guarantor of justice.
Arguing about the relationship of justice with others, in particular, ethical categories, one cannot ignore the categories of good and evil, freedom, conscience, duty, etc.
The close connection between the concepts of justice and goodness was noted even in the judgments of the philosophers of antiquity, in which justice, along with wisdom, courage was presented as the main virtue. Plato said more than once that justice is beneficial and involves doing good to friends, and evil to enemies, while injustice is vicious.
The interpretation of justice as good, and injustice as evil, passed through the history of mankind. A. Camus in "Rebel Man" shows the existence of these categories as a continuous struggle, which, unfortunately, did not lead to a decrease in suffering in the world. A. Schopenhauer calling justice a great virtue, he wrote that it is "the first and most essential, cardinal virtue."
Justice also unthinkable without freedom... A. Camus, arguing about the impossibility of justice without freedom, as well as freedom - without justice, wrote: “No one will consider his ideal free if it is at the same time unjust, and just - if he is not free. Freedom is inconceivable without the ability to express your attitude to justice and injustice. " That is, freedom is a great prerequisite for justice.
Among the most important categories ethics, closely related to justice, are the categories of conscience and duty. PER. Berbeshkin, defining the concept conscience, notes that the power and significance of this self-evaluating and self-judging quality lies in the fact that a person "himself realizes his violations, mistakes and, regardless of public censure," pronounces an honest judgment on himself. It is in these features of such a human quality as conscience that its relationship with justice is seen.
With regard to the relationship of equity to debt, then duty- as a set of moral obligations of a person to other people, society, as a normative principle of high morality - it acts as an internal need for the implementation of these principles, in which capacity it reveals its connection with justice.
To the presented judgments about the relationship of justice with other categories could be added, for example, the categories of democracy, happiness, love, beauty, etc. All this once again confirms that justice is a very capacious multifaceted phenomenon that deeply enters into the material and spiritual structure of society and presupposes the need to take into account the totality of all its aspects when analyzing certain events taking place in society.
Summarizing what has been said, it should be noted that justice, revealing a close connection with the listed phenomena of social life and consciousness, finds its specific manifestation in various spheres of the life of society: socio-economic, political and legal, moral and ethical, etc. the economic sphere, the content of the concept of justice can be expressed in the assessment of economic facts, forms of ownership, social relations, principles of distribution public wealth, the standard of living of the population, social security, etc., then in the field of politics and law it is associated with an assessment of democracy in society, ensuring rights and freedoms, the perfection of the activities of law enforcement agencies, etc. In the sphere of morality and spirituality, the assessment of the content of justice is associated with the system of moral norms, rules, traditions, culture operating in society and their manifestation in other spheres of its life.
In conclusion, we note that social justice can be defined as a socio-philosophical category that characterizes the degree of development of society in terms of the quality of social relations from the standpoint of providing a person with decent living conditions, guaranteeing rights and freedoms, other universal values, the possibility of self-realization of everyone and not causing damage to such the same interests of other people.
What is justice and what is its nature? It is to these questions that have worried mankind from time immemorial that Ilyin offers us his answers.
The author begins his philosophical reasoning by thinking about the French Revolution, which proclaimed the idea of justice and equality. But as the author believes, the justice that is given for everyone is a "prejudice". The philosopher admits the idea that people are all equal. "Then justice could be found arithmetically and carried out mechanically."
However, people are not always equal by nature, otherwise everything around would be extremely simple and monotonous.
Comprehending and studying the hidden depth of the human soul, people should consider each individually.
Thus, according to Ivan Ilyin: "Justice is the art of inequality, which requires subject-based inequality ..."
We can consider this problem on the example of the work of the American feeder Daniel Keyes "Flowers for Algernon". The main character, having undergone an operation that makes him the owner of high intelligence, becomes somewhat selfish in relation to others. Until now, the man did not feel fair to himself. It seemed to him that people humiliated and did not appreciate him. Having become highly intellectual, he begins to relate without fair, due attention to others.
Ultimately, Charlie Gordon returns to his original state.
The problem of justice is especially acute in turning points stories. For example, during the entire existence of serfdom in our state, the peasants were treated without due justice: not as people, but as animals, and sometimes even worse. The peasants were considered to some extent slaves, because the landowner could dispose of the fate of his worker.
So these arguments convince us that true justice cannot be based on equality. To treat people fairly, we must consider individual characteristics every personality.
Effective preparation for the exam (all subjects) - start preparing
Updated: 2017-08-27
Attention!
Thank you for the attention.
If you notice an error or typo, select the text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thus, you will be of invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Soon after two years, I became interested in philosophy, realized this passion in myself, and for the first time I decided to write down my reflections, bring them into the form of an essay. The result is under the cut. I am looking for constructive criticism and comments.
Thanks in advance.
The question of justice, perhaps, occupied me even before I consciously came to philosophy. It was, rather, a consequence of my reaction - having a very sharp innate feeling injustice, I constantly responded, sometimes very emotionally, to the manifestation of injustice in the reality around me. Most of these reactions were accompanied by reflection.
Plato was perhaps the first philosopher to deal with the question of justice, the writings of which I read. Perhaps, while reading "The State", I was in some kind of half-asleep or was very carried away by reasoning about the essence of justice, but not so long ago I suddenly realized that I had left without attention, without thinking, one very important point- the level and context within which the issue itself was considered. It is completely incomprehensible to me how I could have missed this, because all my personal, often intuitive, ideas about justice were located on a completely different level and the essence of the definition of justice around which I revolved was largely determined by this level.
In the "State" Socrates defines justice as a quality, as a good, even the highest good. But not just a quality and not just a good, but the good and quality of a person, something that a person can act as a bearer of. He builds his own state, and considers justice in it in terms of the social, only in order to transfer the considerations obtained as a result of such a method to a person. To explain the justice of a person. Those who consider cannot tear themselves away from a person, they root justice in a person, develop it as a property of a person. "What does a person need to do in order to be just?", "What does a person need to do in order to live a just life?" This is the moment that got me thinking. I realized that I had always intuitively understood justice differently. Not "which person is just?" But "what is fair?" We can observe injustice. We may experience injustice for ourselves. We can talk about fair order and justice. In all these theses, man is present, but somehow invisibly, not like in Plato. The highest good, justice as such, in its essence presupposes globality, scale and refers rather to ontology than to individual anthropology. At the same time, justice is absent in being, being is unfair already because it is indifferent to justice. A person is an instrument of justice as he is able to bring justice through actions. Thus, justice refers to being, and there it takes root in actions. These are my hypotheses, this is a level with a person and above a person. But the thought took me further, I decided to rise to the highest, metaphysical level of ontology. Only in order to descend to the level that I schematically outlined above - the level between society and being.
Is it possible to talk about justice not even in the ontological, but in the metaphysical sense, in the very high level? In a cosmic sense. Or does metaphysics not presuppose the very concept of justice? The world simply is, with its complex structure, with the movement of planets and galaxies, with its randomness. Is it possible to talk about justice at the level where people and society are so small that they can be excluded from the system? Exclude a person from being - is it possible in this case to talk about justice or the concept itself will become inapplicable? Justice chemical reactions... Justice quantum physics... Does not justice arise when a person collides with being, and does it not therefore presuppose some, perhaps even emotional, reaction? The processes are objective; reaction, interpretation are subjective. And here's another thing - free will and choice. That is why, it seems to me, the judgment of justice presupposes the presence of a person in the system. A judgment of fairness requires an act. The act requires will and choice - the act presupposes a person. In the context of justice, we can even consider the absence of the possibility for the manifestation of will and choice in the presence of the ability for will and choice. The galaxy is devoid of will and choice, the death of the galaxy, therefore, does not imply a question of justice. The death of a galaxy inhabited by people sharply raises the question of the justice of such a phenomenon precisely because the system that dies may contain a deep history of will and elections individuals, not suggesting, due to the causal relationship, such an end. The causal relationship is very important to me and I will talk about it below. Justice arises where there is an act, choice, and will, which means that there is a person. The judgment of justice arises from the collision of a person with a cold, soulless being. It seems interesting to me that such a collision casts a shadow on being itself, colors it, does something until recently, seemingly otherworldly, something to which the category of justice itself is inapplicable and not simply not applicable, not thought, does not arise and does not exist, makes it unfair. I have already spoken about this injustice of being. And here, as it seems to me, nothing can be added. Being, metaphysics, can be either outside justice, or - as soon as being meets a person - unjust. In this regard, it seems to me, justice can be tried on two levels: the way Plato considers it in the "State", justice as a quality of a specific person, and within social philosophy, but not vulgar-socially, but on a certain border of the social, the totality of people, groups of people, and the ontological. Ontology is here - how big mountain, in the shade of which there is a settlement in which social life develops. There is little to say about the grief itself - it just exists, but it casts a shadow on the village and everything that happens, and you cannot forget about it. One should always remember about ontology in connection with the question of justice.
Equity presupposes versatility. Justice that is not present, not performed for all possible acts and is not thus taken to the extreme, is not justice. The lack of fulfillment of justice, even in a single case, leads to injustice, here a neutral position is impossible. What we observe every day, at the simplest level, makes it possible to assert about the injustice of life, makes it possible to touch what I discussed above. Some people get rich, other eat shit and die. People who lead an immoral lifestyle, commit crimes of various kinds, people who invade the boundaries of the lives of other people and break the lives of other people - such people often have many benefits and are even happy, at least on the surface. People who lead a moral lifestyle, respect other people, help them, people who work hard to achieve their goals - people often suffer and are left with nothing. This is the level where being is reflected in society. There is a lot of humanity here and this is exactly the area where Plato's reasoning could be useful. If justice was present in each individual person, in one of those interpretations that Plato gives her, as doing good for friends and not doing evil for everyone, or in the form as defined by the liberal doctrine - as respect for another person, non-interference into the sphere of her freedom, this would automatically lead to justice in social sphere, in the human sphere, more precisely to the absence of injustice originating from a person within a group. All "human" would be devoid of injustice. But - only human. The question of fairness at this level could thus be removed. This, however, would not exclude the question of ontological justice, or rather, ontological injustice, the absence of justice in being. In the system described above, injustice caused by the cold, irresistible, accidental, but from this no less measured, pace of life would in no way be ruled out. And the question is - would not this state of affairs nullify all the justice acquired in the human sphere? Ontological injustice would continue to be present in the world. The very randomness of the final result of the totality of life's acts determines the injustice of being. Awareness of injustice arises precisely here from the thought that in such a question there should be no place for chance, that the cause-and-effect relationship should clearly work. This is a very deep desire. It is at the moments of the most acute awareness of the failure of the cause-and-effect relationship in the world, in its very nature, that man curses and rejects God.
With regard to the above, to the context in which justice arises and exists, I would like to give my definition of justice. Fairness is the clear work of causation. Being is unfair and causation does not work in it. Here there is an opportunity for an objection, especially on the part of religious people, about the impossibility of knowing the plan of God, or, in other words, about the impossibility of assessing the effectiveness of the mechanism of cause-and-effect relationship. This is an interesting question and needs to be addressed - but not within the scope of this note. In the meantime, I will remain on the position expressed earlier. Restoration of justice is an attempt to restore the work of the causal mechanism. The world is dominated by strength and will, manifested in actions. That is why I said that man is an instrument of justice. A person is able to make choices, direct strength and will. Exercising justice is directing strength and will to implement the work of causation. In this sense, it is a challenge to being, it is a struggle against being. It seems to me that a person should think of injustice as his quality in only one, clearly defined sense. Injustice is the absence of the very attempt at rebellion against ontological injustice. This injustice is huge, colossal. This is a concept related to a specific person reflected in being. Being gives him an interpretation: a person cannot achieve justice, but he cannot and does not strive to achieve it. A person is burdened with the opportunity, potency, to restore justice and the failure to realize this potential, passivity is an injustice in itself. It is, as it were, derived from the injustice of being. If injustice comes from the collision of man and being, then justice comes from the collision of being and man. And so I, nevertheless, come to disagreement with Plato. Injustice, it seems to me, can be inherent as a quality to a person. Fairness is not.
V school curriculum includes tasks in which it is necessary to write an essay "What is justice." Regardless of the age of the students, an understanding of honesty and fair treatment is inherent in everyone. Young children and high school students alike will be able to describe the word "justice" in their own words. An essay can be written both about some specific events, and in the form of free reasoning. The task of parents and teachers is to guide students on how to communicate their thoughts correctly in order to get a high score for the work performed.
How to write an essay plan
In order for the essay "What is justice" to be written ideally, it is necessary to draw up a plan for presenting thoughts for the child. This is not difficult: you just need to take into account the basic requirements for such tasks. The plan could be as follows:
- The introductory part of the essay. Here you need to talk about what justice is, what this definition is inherent in life.
- In the main part, it is necessary to describe whether the child has encountered events in which he was treated incorrectly. At this point, you need to describe in detail your experiences and clearly state the idea of understanding justice.
- In conclusion, it should be indicated what needs to be done so that justice is always on the side of the one who is right.
Such a plan will help the child to put their thoughts in the right order and get a good mark for their efforts.
Composition "What is justice" for elementary grades
The smallest children can perfectly distinguish truth from falsehood, so it will not be difficult to write an essay about justice. As an example, you can show the children the following composition:
“I love it when everything in life happens right. Sometimes the lack of justice makes me very sad. Therefore, I really want everything to be honest.
One day I was confronted with a terrible attitude towards myself. I learned the subject myself and wrote the assignment well. One of my classmates copied everything from my notebook word for word. After checking, the teacher handed out notebooks, and I saw in my bad grade... It was written near the mark that I copied the work from the one who actually copied from me. There was no limit to disappointment, and I just didn’t know how to prove my case. The most interesting thing is that the boy who cheated from me got a good grade. This was the real injustice.
I would like to face such situations less often. It hurts and hurts when this happens. "
Such an essay is full of sincerity and is based on real events. Such works are worthy of high marks. After all the main objective such creative assignment- to convey their own experiences and correctly express them in the text.
"What is justice" - an essay-reasoning for high school students
Students over the fifth grade can write more than hard work using complex phrases and sayings. The essay "What is justice" for high school students may be as follows:
"In life, every person is sometimes faced with different situations... Often there are events in which a person is treated unfairly for no good reason. The most important thing is to react correctly and be able to prove your case.
There are many actions that can explain a fair or unfair attitude towards a person. I have specific example when a person was not treated as he deserves. My dad has been working at the same enterprise for ten years. He gets a little, but enough for life. Once the position of the head of the department in which my father works was vacated. He was completely sure that he would be given this position. Nevertheless, from no one knows where, a newcomer suddenly appeared in the company and took the vacant position. It was very unfair to my dad.
Situations can be different, the most important thing is to be able to adequately accept any attitude towards yourself. After all, how many people, so many opinions. Let justice prevail. "
High school students are well aware of what justice is. The essay will be written easily and without difficulty. You just need to clearly state your thoughts and understand what the teacher wants to see in this assignment.
