What Is Justice?

 

I don’t think there is a civilization on earth that does not at least pay lip service to the ideal of a just society. I think this is in part because even despotic rulers know that in order to keep their reign intact, their people need to somehow feel that justice has been done.

And while definitions of what constitutes Justice differ radically between different ancient and modern laws, there actually is not that much of a distinction between humanists and Catholics, atheists or Jews.  This is because, as far as I can tell, the Torah requirements for justice have been widely adopted and even taken for granted.

For example, the ancient principle of “Might Makes Right,” while dominant wherever tyranny holds sway, is not considered legitimate or even acceptable in the civilized world.

Also swept away is the ancient idea of Greece and Rome that there are (at least) two bodies of law: one for the native and one for the “other,” the barbarian or heathen. Instead, the modern world assumes that everyone should receive justice under the same body of laws. “Decide justly between any man and his fellow and a stranger.” (Deut. 1:15) Similarly,  though capricious and “might makes right” despotic regimes certainly exist – and I count “cancel culture” among those – reasonable people the world over share the ideal that justice should be blind to the status of the petitioner: “You must not pervert justice; you must not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the rich; you are to judge your neighbor fairly.” (Lev. 19:15), and “You shall not be partial in judgement: hear out low and high alike.” (Deut. 1:17).

But what IS the foundation of justice? I’d like to make a radical argument: in the Torah, justice is not necessarily underpinned by a code of law, not even a Torah one. Sure, there are the principles we have already repeated: justice (as opposed to tyranny) is a critical building block for any righteous society, and it requires equality under the law.

But when you look at the use of the word “Tz-D-K”, the Hebrew for justice in the Torah, you discover something quite surprising. The first time it is used is to describe Noah, a “just man in his generation,” and the second refers to a king-priest who greets Abram after his victorious battle. His name was Malchi-Tzedek (the second half of the name forming the root word for “justice”.) And although Abram’s allies don’t perceive a divine hand in the victory (we see, after all, what we choose to see), Malchi-Tzedek immediately credits G-d: “Blessed be the most high G-d who has delivered thy enemies into thy hand.”

What do these two people have to do with Justice? Why is Noah called just and Malchi-Tzedek has the word for justice in his name?

I think the answer is clear in the text: Malchi-tzedek was able to see things from Abram’s perspective. He could see things from the point of view of the other person.

And Noah? The very first thing we know about Noah through his actions was that Noah was able to hear G-d. THIS is what made him “righteous in his generation.” Noah heard G-d’s voice.

Which beautifully explains to us for both within the Torah and for all time immemorial what “justice” actually means: it means hearing each person, making them feel valued and appreciated. A good judge is someone who cares about people, who is sensitive to their feelings and need for respect. That is the single biggest prerequisite for justice to be done.

I am not saying that a justice and a society do not also need laws (the Torah certainly gives us the principles for a detailed set of laws), but I am saying that the laws are ultimately only worthwhile if justice is seen to be done, if petitioners feel that they have been heard fairly.

That is why “justice” in the Torah is not given to us in the name of a Torah scholar. Instead, the two people associated with justice, Noah and Malchi-Tzedek were not even Jewish. The lesson in this is incredible to me: the Torah is not only telling us that we have to treat fellow-Jews and non-Jews the same under the law. It is also telling us that the torch-bearers of the concept of justice were indeed themselves not Jewish.  This is a shockingly egalitarian revelation to me, both for the ancient world and for the modern one. The Torah credits not G-d and not the forefathers for inventing justice, but two outsiders, thoughtful and empathic men, men who could hear a non-corporeal voice and who could see a situation through the eyes of other people.

Justice may (and should) be codified in a body of law, but that body of law is worthless unless people validate it and feel valued within it. This is why Moses commands that his justices “hear out your fellow men and decide justly… hear out low and high alike…. And any matter that is too difficult for you, you shall bring it to me, and I will hear it.” It is the hearing

Within the Torah, judges were hierarchically assigned, with the first tier judge hearing all cases within his local cohort; just ten men formed that unit. That judge was not a legal giant; he was instead a man who wanted and needed to peaceably coexist with his cohort. So his first goal would have always been to try to find a compromise, a settlement that minimized resentment. Doing his job well meant taking the time and energy to truly listen to the petitioners, hear them out, see their point of view, and even (as Noah did) to hear what may not be spoken out loud. Only after someone feels they have had their day in court can a just decision be reached.

Listening is the foundational aspect of justice: being able to hear G-d and man alike, being able to truly see things from the perspective of the other person. The Torah tells us that this is a critical virtue, one that we learned from non-Jews and in turn must apply it zealously within our own society as well as seeking to make it a universal virtue across all the lands and peoples of the world.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 21 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Richard Fulmer Inactive
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    iWe: “justice” actually means: it means hearing each person, making them feel valued and appreciated.

    I think that you’re conflating justice and empathy.  Justice means to give to each what he deserves.  Hearing each person is a necessary step in determining what is deserved, but it is not justice.

    • #1
  2. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Richard Fulmer (View Comment):

    iWe: “justice” actually means: it means hearing each person, making them feel valued and appreciated.

    I think that you’re conflating justice and empathy. Justice means to give to each what he deserves. Hearing each person is a necessary step in determining what is deserved, but it is not justice.

    I am offering you the Torah view.  It tells us to do justice – by hearing each person out fully. The other uses of the word support this. Neither Noah nor Malchi-Tzedek “judged” in the way you present the meaning.

    I have no quibble with your understanding of what “justice” means in the English language.

    • #2
  3. Richard Fulmer Inactive
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    iWe (View Comment):
    I am offering you the Torah view. It tells us to do justice – by hearing each person out fully.

    Again, hearing each person out fully is a means to achieve justice, but it is not justice.  Actions aren’t achievements, means aren’t ends, verbs aren’t nouns.

    • #3
  4. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    iWe (View Comment):

    Richard Fulmer (View Comment):

    iWe: “justice” actually means: it means hearing each person, making them feel valued and appreciated.

    I think that you’re conflating justice and empathy. Justice means to give to each what he deserves. Hearing each person is a necessary step in determining what is deserved, but it is not justice.

    I am offering you the Torah view. It tells us to do justice – by hearing each person out fully. The other uses of the word support this. Neither Noah nor Malchi-Tzedek “judged” in the way you present the meaning.

    I have no quibble with your understanding of what “justice” means in the English language.

    If @richardfulmer is correct as far as English usage goes, is “just” an accurate translation of “tzedek? in the first place?” The Latin root has more of a connotation of “law”. Tz-D-K is a potential attribute or characteristic of law.

     

    צֶ˜דֶק S 6664 TWOT 1879a GK 7406 n.m. Is 1:21 rightness, righteousness ;— צ׳ Lv 19:36 + 87 times; צִדְקִי Is 41:10 + 8 times, etc.;— 1. what is right, just, normal; rightness, justness , of weights and measures, אֵיפָה שְׁלֵמָה וָצֶדֶק אֶבֶן Dt 25:15 a perfect and a just weight, ephah; מֹאזְנֵי צ׳ אַבְנֵי צ׳ אֵיפַת צ׳ הִין צ׳ בַּת צ׳ Lv 19:36 ( H Jb 31:6 Ez 45:1 0; מַעְגְּלֵי צ׳ right paths ψ 23:3 זִבְחֵי צ׳ Dt 33:19 ψ 4:6 51:21 2. righteousness , in government: a. of judges, rulers, kings, שׁפט בצ׳ Lv 19:15 ( H ); שׁפט צ׳ Dt 1:16 Pr 31: 9; משׁפט צ׳ Dt 16:1 8; רדף צ׳ v 2 0; חֹוקֵק צ׳ Pr 8:1 5; מלך לצ׳ Is 32: 1; דבּר צ׳ ψ 58:2 ; also Pr 25:5 ψ 94:15 Ec 5: 7. b. of law, as מִשְׁפָּטִים Is 58:2 ψ 119:7 62 75 106 160 ( Ö , but MT מִשְׁפַּט ), v

    • #4
  5. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Interesting thoughts.  Over the years, though, I have come to the conclusion that what people really want is rarely what we would consider “justice” in either sense of the term.  If they wanted actual justice, whether that meant each party getting what it deserved, or each party being fully heard and judged accordingly, they should be in terror lest they find their case is fundamentally unjust.  No, I fear what people most often seem to fall back on is a desire for retribution wrapped up in the mantle of “justice”.

    • #5
  6. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Richard Fulmer (View Comment):

    I think that you’re conflating justice and empathy. Justice means to give to each what he deserves. Hearing each person is a necessary step in determining what is deserved, but it is not justice.

    What if the main thing he deserves is a fair hearing?

    • #6
  7. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    If @richardfulmer is correct as far as English usage goes, is “just” an accurate translation of “tzedek? in the first place?” The Latin root has more of a connotation of “law”. Tz-D-K is a potential attribute or characteristic of law.

    Good point. It is not a straight translation – though nothing is from one language to another.

    In another post I used the word “truth” – although I am not keen on a popular understanding of that word. The  meaning of a Hebrew word, as you already know well, is deeply contextual based on how it is used elsewhere in the text. My own work follows the understanding that the first time(s) a word is used in the Torah tell us what the word means. Hence “tzedek” define by Noah and Malchi-Tzedek.

    • #7
  8. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Richard Fulmer (View Comment):

    I think that you’re conflating justice and empathy. Justice means to give to each what he deserves. Hearing each person is a necessary step in determining what is deserved, but it is not justice.

    What if the main thing he deserves is a fair hearing?

    If his case is lousy, then ALL he may deserve is a fair hearing. That is still very important.

    • #8
  9. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Richard Fulmer (View Comment):

    I think that you’re conflating justice and empathy. Justice means to give to each what he deserves. Hearing each person is a necessary step in determining what is deserved, but it is not justice.

    What if the main thing he deserves is a fair hearing?

    Aug,

    I think you are at the most common point.

    You shall not judge unfairly: you shall show no partiality; you shall not take bribes, for bribes blind the eyes of the discerning and upset the plea of the just. – Deuteromy 16:19

    Impartiality has always been at the heart of our concepts of Justice. Our most modern systematic explanation of this has been Rawls, A Theory of Justice. Of course, what is most dismaying is that identity politics takes this trait of Justice that is consistent all the way back to the Torah and turns it on its head. The woke interpretation asks the Judge not to be impartial but to be partial in exactly the right way to correct some past imaginary wrong.

    I don’t think the Torah was wrong about this. I don’t think Rawls was wrong about this. I think intersectionality and the whole deconstructionist insanity is totally wrong. They have trashed Justice.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #9
  10. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Richard Fulmer (View Comment):

    I think that you’re conflating justice and empathy. Justice means to give to each what he deserves. Hearing each person is a necessary step in determining what is deserved, but it is not justice.

    What if the main thing he deserves is a fair hearing?

    Aug,

    I think you are at the most common point.

    You shall not judge unfairly: you shall show no partiality; you shall not take bribes, for bribes blind the eyes of the discerning and upset the plea of the just. – Deuteromy 16:19

    Impartiality has always been at the heart of our concepts of Justice. Our most modern systematic explanation of this has been Rawls, A Theory of Justice. Of course, what is most dismaying is that identity politics takes this trait of Justice that is consistent all the way back to the Torah and turns it on its head. The woke interpretation asks the Judge not to be impartial but to be partial in exactly the right way to correct some past imaginary wrong.

    I don’t think the Torah was wrong about this. I don’t think Rawls was wrong about this. I think intersectionality and the whole deconstructionist insanity is totally wrong. They have trashed Justice.

    Regards,

    Jim

    I love those passages in the Torah on how you shall not be partial to a rich guy in court, and how you shall not be partial to a poor guy either!

    (Wherever those passages are. Ex. 23, maybe. I have this in my notes somewhere.)

    • #10
  11. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    (Wherever those passages are. Ex. 23, maybe. I have this in my notes somewhere.)

    Aug,

    Sweet! Here you go and from the King James version.

    Leviticus 19:15

    Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

    We let go of this for intersectional garbage. Sad.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #11
  12. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Richard Fulmer (View Comment):

    I think that you’re conflating justice and empathy. Justice means to give to each what he deserves. Hearing each person is a necessary step in determining what is deserved, but it is not justice.

    What if the main thing he deserves is a fair hearing?

    All the same, this can’t be a complete picture of justice all by itself. This looks to justice in process, which is super important. But justice in results (@richardfulmer) still matters.

    I looked one up myself this time–Lev. 24 gives us the principle of proportional justice. That pertains to results, not process.

    (Right?)

    • #12
  13. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Richard Fulmer (View Comment):

    I think that you’re conflating justice and empathy. Justice means to give to each what he deserves. Hearing each person is a necessary step in determining what is deserved, but it is not justice.

    What if the main thing he deserves is a fair hearing?

    All the same, this can’t be a complete picture of justice all by itself. This looks to justice in process, which is super important. But justice in results (@richardfulmer) still matters.

    I looked one up myself this time–Lev. 24 gives us the principle of proportional justice. That pertains to results, not process.

    (Right?)

     

    • #13
  14. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Aug,

    Proportional Justice can be very difficult. Even Kant says that sometimes the strictest Right can be the greatest Wrong. One thing is for sure. If you corrupt the process there is no hope of producing Justice. When Marxists hold their purge trials the outcome is already known. The process has been completely corrupted so Justice doesn’t have a chance.

    Strangely, the process is that important.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #14
  15. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Leviticus 19:15

    Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

    We let go of this for intersectional garbage. Sad.

    They – They let it go.

    We had little to do with it.

    Luv ya Jim!

    • #15
  16. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    The emphasis here seems to be justice without laws.  The OP is giving lip service to laws, but emphasizes judges who do what they think is just.  At least that’s how I interpret it.

    Isn’t that the excuse our judges use to ignore laws when it suits them in the name of justice?

    As I read his framework description of judges, it reminded me of Judge Roy Bean.

    Disclaimer: I’m not educated in the Torah, nor adhere to Jewish tradition.  I’m not making a theological argument, but a practical one.

    • #16
  17. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    The emphasis here seems to be justice without laws. The OP is giving lip service to laws, but emphasizes judges who do what they think is just. At least that’s how I interpret it.

    Isn’t that the excuse our judges use to ignore laws when it suits them in the name of justice?

    As I read his framework description of judges, it reminded me of Judge Roy Bean.

    Disclaimer: I’m not educated in the Torah, nor adhere to Jewish tradition. I’m not making a theological argument, but a practical one.

    Al,

    Judge Bean could be really sensitive. He had a deep abiding respect for others’ feelings.

    So nice to apologize.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #17
  18. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Al Sparks (View Comment):
    Al Sparks

    The emphasis here seems to be justice without laws. The OP is giving lip service to laws, but emphasizes judges who do what they think is just. At least that’s how I interpret it.

    That is not what I am saying at all.

    I am saying that listening is a precondition before a ruling can be made. People need to be heard. Each person’s soul deserves that much. For the benefit of society as a whole, justices should avoid engendering contempt. People who feel they have had a real audience are much less likely to want to burn down the courthouse.

     

     

    • #18
  19. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    iWe (View Comment):
    People need to be heard. Each person’s soul deserves that much.

    Yes, to the image of G-d that much is owed. That much is due. That is a requirement of justice.

    • #19
  20. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Al,

    Judge Bean could be really sensitive. He had a deep abiding respect for others’ feelings.

    So nice to apologize.

    Regards,

    Jim

    The man was a natural politician.

    • #20
  21. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):
    People need to be heard. Each person’s soul deserves that much.

    Yes, to the image of G-d that much is owed. That much is due. That is a requirement of justice.

    Aug,

    One of the great benefits of being religious (I wasn’t always) is simply realizing that Gd is just and that His justice is always there. Even if for the moment we don’t have a clue where or how his justice will be vindicated, it is comforting to know that it will happen.

    פ You open Your hand and feed every living creature until it is satisfied.

    צ Adonai is righteous in every way, and faithful in every deed.

    ק Adonai is near to all those who call, to all who call upon God sincerely.

    ר God will fulfill the wishes of the reverent; God will hear their cry and deliver them.

    ש Adonai protects all those who love God, but will destroy all the wicked.

    ת May my mouth utter the praise of Adonai, and may all flesh bless God’s name forever and ever.

    We will bless God now and forever. Halleluyah! (Psalm 115:8)

    This is part of the Ashrei prayer. An Orthodox Jew says this (and more) three times a day.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #21
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.