One view sees justice as no more or less than what the current.
There are no universal principles by which.
justice or injustice can be defined other than the way in which the.
government has made its laws. Thus, in different societies and under.
different authorities, justice is different. In this view, the idea.
that there is some sort of universal ideal or natural law is often just.
an argument by those who do not like the laws of the government in.
power.
The opposing view argues that there is a natural ideal of justice that.
law aspires to that can be used as a criteria to measure whether laws.
are just or not. This school of thought is traditionally described as.
people who support the concept of natural law or natural justice.
Catholic social teaching is partly based on the assumption principle.
that there is an ideal of justice that can be discovered and be held up.
as a criteria with which to evaluate current legal arrangements.
These two opposite views of justice are the starting point for.
analysis. There are many different definitions of justice. Most of.
these definitions are contested. Let us look briefly at a few. Keep in.
mind that many people discuss justice in terms of a specific situation,.
that is, what is the right or just thing to do when confronted with.
certain facts. That is applied justice. These preliminary thoughts are.
not about applied justice, but the themes which are included in the.
concept of justice.
Three ancient thinkers helped articulate concepts of justice that form.
the basis for much of western thought and catholic social teaching.
These are Socrates (470BC-399BC), Plato (427BC-348BC) and Aristotle.
(384BC-322BC).
Socrates was a teacher and philosopher who lived in Athens between 470.
BC and 399 BC. Socrates wrote nothing. His method of teaching was to.
dialogue with his students, questioning their assumptions, and.
cross-examining what people thought to be true. His most famous.
pronouncement was that, after questioning all the people that society.