What is justice

Hans Kelsen

This book is based on a question that not even Jesus Christ knew how to answer,
that is, what is justice, then Hans Kelsen begins by saying that a just man is one
who acts according to the rules established by a social order, then refers that a
social order will be just when it makes the majority of its subjects or governed
happy, this in consequence of the fact that no government or social order can have
all its governed completely happy since there will always be people who do not
agree with certain ideas, causing resentment and resentment.This is because no
government or social order can have all its governed completely happy, since there
will always be people who do not agree with certain ideas, causing resentment and
a subjective idea that what is established by a social order is unjust, e.g., taxes:
taxes.

From the above I can conclude that people conduct themselves fairly, from the
moment they decide to obey the orders of their government, however a social
order will act fairly, when the majority of its governed go according to the rules
created by it. Another very important aspect within justice is happiness, since from
my point of view and according to the author's criteria, justice has two faces
regarding its application, since when it is applied between two or more people, it
causes happiness to one of them and to the other an idea that what was done was
unfair, for example, in a labor relationship between an employer and a worker
where the one who decides what is fair is the federal labor law, stating that the
worker's vacation days are six days for one year of service: in a labor relationship
between an employer and a worker where the one who decides that it is fair
between the federal labor law, stating that the vacation days of the worker are six
days for one year of service, this being complied with by both, from the point of
view of the employer and the worker, it is fair because the employer does not have
to pay the employee for the vacation days, and the employee does not have to pay
the employee for the vacation days.This is fair from the point of view of the
employer because it is not many days that he is deprived of his labor and main
element of the employer, which causes happiness to him, on the contrary, the
worker thinks that six days is too little, causing him unhappiness and an idea that it
is unfair.

In the previous idea it is very important to mention that neither of the two points of
view should be taken as just or unjust, since as I said before the one qualified to
say what is just or unjust is the law and the other norms of a social order or
government.

Continuing with the previous idea, it is important to specify that the government
itself is the one that dictates what is just and unjust through its norms, since we as
the governed have delegated certain freedom to it, so that it may consolidate itself
as a state, and in turn this state may protect the interests of the majority; examples
of these interests are: life, equality, security, freedom, etc.

Going a little off the subject, I want to mention the social contract referred to by
John Jacob Rousseau: which was celebrated between society itself, so that
society, renouncing absolute freedom, delegated to a government the possibility of
regulating certain behaviors of society, resulting in the creation of crimes, as well
as family institutions such as marriage.

To conclude this idea, it must be understood that in the end the government is the
one who is able to say what is just or unjust through laws, since we ourselves
delegated that power to it.

Another very important aspect mentioned is the conflict of values that arises when
applying justice, both as individuals and as a society, since sometimes we have to
decide between two values that we consider important, having to choose one of
the two and discard the other, about this the author gives an example of this
conflict; When a doctor and his patient are talking about the situation or state of the
latter, the doctor, starting from the idea that the patient's disease is chronic and
fatal, has to decide between telling the truth or having compassion and giving him
certain hopes that in the end are false.

From this example it can be seen that the physician must make a judgment
between these two values: truth and compassion, giving a clear example of this
conflict of values.

This same situation occurs when our government has to decide on certain issues,
for example: abortion, between whether to legalize or not, then then falling into a
controversy between two values which are: the integrity and freedom of women
over their bodies against the life and health of the product, here an example at the
social level.

Another aspect that is taken into account when applying justice is equality, based
on the idea that this is; to treat people equally regardless of their status, economic
level, sex, religion, etc. The above related to justice, implies that there should be
no discrimination at the time of applying justice, since our constitution also has
equality as a guarantee.

Another thing that the book comments on is that justice is the supreme value on
which our legal system relies, relating it to a great question that Plato asked
himself, which is; what is good, he says that human behaviors will be good when
the majority of people agree with certain thoughts.
There is a relationship between what is good and justice, since for the law to
indicate what is just, society must first agree with certain behaviors or thoughts,
considering them good so that subsequently these behaviors become law and
obligatory.

On the birth of justice as a value, several schools have tried to explain its
emergence, among which stands out the naturalistic school, which explains that
the birth of these values go hand in hand with the birth of the human being, this
means that from the moment we are born we are holders of all these values,
including justice, resulting in that we can not be deprived of any of these, so as by
nature itself must be fulfilled instinctively.

Contrary to the above, there is another position that undermines the naturalistic
thinking, because it says that nature alone does not have the will, much less the
possibility to do, to comply with justice in case of non-compliance, finishing
discrediting it with the following case: the law of retaliation, which says an eye for
an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

This was an erroneous way of applying justice because the revenge was often
disproportionate to the harm caused to the victim, resulting in an inequality
between crime and punishment. Completely destroying the thought that nature
alone can enforce justice.

To conclude, the author mentions that there is not really a definitive and totally
accepted answer as to what justice is, however he says that justice is a supreme
value on which peace, the common good, freedom, equality and other values of
lower hierarchy are applied and rest.

Conclusion and personal contribution

From my point of view I can say that justice is: that supreme value of individual and
social transcendence, aimed at giving to each one what corresponds to him
according to the law of a government or social order, which by means of moral and
legal norms, seeks the common good.

I consider that there are classifications of justice, for example: individual justice and
social justice, moral justice and obligatory legal justice, among others that may
arise from its application.