Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 1

The first post that introduces the book is here. Nick's book is loaded with finer distinctions between various philosophical opinions, and therefore, it is not easy to summarize the book without cutting out certain points. This indicates the depth of his engagement with the matter, and yet one can get lost too unless one concentrates. This is not a book that you can just relax and read; it requires serious reading! 

Nick provides a preliminary description of right in the introductory chapter. He gives another preliminary description of right in this chapter again. The last paragraph of this post will explain this concept. In this chapter the author explains the difference between the concept of justice  laid out by right order theorists like Plato and his own version which is similar to that of Roman jurist Ulpian.

This is Plato's version of justice given in the Republic. In the Republic, Plato narrates the account of Socrates' dialogues with his friends to obtain concepts of justice for an individual soul as well as for the city. For this blog, I am simplifying Plato's account. To obtain the concept of justice, Plato  begins by asking what the function of a city is. And he says that the function of a city is: to provide  provision, to defend itself and to govern the citizens. Then he goes on to ask how the city would function well. He says a city would function well when there is division of labour (say, a craftsman doing his craft to provide provision; a soldier defending the city; and the king governing the city well) based on natural ability and education. Thus, if there is no mistake in the structural division and educational provided based on one's natural ability, and the different parties function based on their respective ability, it will be a good city, a city that functions well. It will then be a city where justice prevail -- where there is right order. 

In the book, Nick explains Ulpian's version first and then comes to Plato's version. I reverse the order for this blog post. Ulpian writes that justice is a "steady and enduring will to render to each other their ius."  'Ius' is normally translated as 'right', but the word 'right' here needs explanation. For example, because you have promised to pay me Rs. 100 if I work in your garden for two hours, I did work for two hours. Now you refused to pay me. I have the right to be paid. But I am not enjoying my right. The fact that you refused to pay me does not make my right vanish; it's just that I am not enjoying my right. When you pay me, I shall be enjoying my right. Thus, justice prevails when I enjoy my right, when my 'ius' is honoured. When my right is denied, I am wronged by you. You are guilty; and I am wronged. For justice to prevail, I need to enjoy my right. 

The right order theorists argue that rights come about because of legislation, speech acts etc. Whereas Nick argues that rights do come about that way, but there is more to it.  Nick argues that rights also come about because the entity possesses certain property, stand in certain sort of relationship with other entities or perform certain sort of action; they have certain inherent rights. This is the difference between right theorists like Nick and right order theorist like Plato. Thus, the difference basically is, if I may surmise, whether there is any right called inherent right or not. And this (natural) inherent right is not natural right! By natural right, generally it means the conferred natural right, not inherent right. Right order theorists can accept conferred natural right or rather simply natural right, but not inherent right. And Nick is going to defend the idea of inherent right and the concept of justice based on inherent right an individual possesses.