Justice Can Exist

Justice is not only the most significant concept for reaching the true peaceful society in the world, but also can guide human beings to find the meaning of all life and more than that existence of endless if they are believer as its said in Holy Books. In the world, people always have had fights and wars because of many reasons throughout history. However, all of the reasons of those fighting were mostly related with having no true justice between nations, societies and people. True justice can exist, but it can be only for the people who can see beyond of this world life and its material gaining in their own lives. This kind of people would prefer living the good life instead of living in the wealthy life so being fair would be more important than taking advantages in the life. It needs seeing the bigger picture with all perspectives in this world. This can require firstly, people who can think the whole society profit instead of thinking their own benefit and secondly the people could think the good life which has only just actions for each condition that they could not give up that even if it would bring not good for themselves.

True justice would mean that "it is give to each what he is owed" as Socrates says in the Republic (Plato 9). It means equality between people in the world. However, it is not giving what everyone has same, but everyone what they deserve and want. Furthermore, People should behave nicely to others as they would like to get behavior from other people in a society. It could be possible only for the human beings who think their societies’ benefits more than they think their own interests. In this case, people who are supposed to be true fair person should never harm anyone although he could be considered as an unjust or a bad. He also says the reason why just person should not harm anyone by this sentence; "Then won’t we say the same about human beings, too, that when human beings are harmed they become worse in human virtue?’ and ‘Then, Polemarchus, it isn’t the function of a just person to harm a friend or anyone else, rather it is the function of his opposite, an unjust person?" (Plato 11) That means true justice would never harm people but instead it would bring justice for people and make them righteous in the world. It could be provided by only people who are thinking others around them as much as they do think themselves. Regarding only yourself to be just and fair, but no thinking about that others could be just or not as it is unimportant for you would be also obstacle for reaching true justice.

Justice is also need for people to live in peace, because injustice would lead society to have violence where there could be peace for human beings, as Socrates says that "Injustice, Thrasymachus, causes civil war, hatred, and fighting among themselves, while justice brings friendship and a sense of common purpose. Isn’t that so?"(Plato 28) There is need for justice in the world to have peaceful society. As we know that it is not easy for that there could be no day without fighting and wars in our world as from the ancient times till modern times. It slightly shows real justice can not exist in that way. However, even if something never happened in the past, this would not surely mean that it is not possible to happen one day in this world or there can be unknown place humans could never be able to think in this world but they could reach it one day after it as every record of today for all times shows us that.

According to Nizamü’l Mülk people should think beyond of this life’s material gaining to reach true justice. Their aim should be the good life living, it would not be good or easy to live though. There is accepted value about that human beings have faith such as believing the after world. They have to feel to be good in their lives to reach achieving their good for endless instead of getting things of this world by using every method as possible to do. However, human beings could be non-believer even but there would be still need for true justice. Forwhy a human could be able to live in this world without faith as it is known, but no human could live without justice as living the good life. Although they could be considered as themselves as living creature, it would not be accepted as living for real humans. It clearly proves that society needs justice as people can reach it by thinking of society instead of thinking individual advantages. On the other hand, after Socrates explains injustice would lead people be unjust and enemy of the other people who are just or unjust, he mentions that "the gods too are just? So an unjust person is also an enemy of the gods; Thrasymachus while a just person is their friend."(Plato 29) It shows that true believer person should be just by this view, but also a person who does not believe anything like gods would need justice to live the good life for his soul so he has to be just, too because of the Nizamü’l Mülk’s idea . This way there can be possibility for true justice existing in the world.

Secondly, the possibility of real justice surviving in this world needs people who are choosing the living the good life instead of choosing the wealth or material gaining by anything can be done for it. In this context, Socrates also claims that "Now, we agreed that justice is a soul’s virtue, and injustice its vice?" and "Then, it follows that a just soul and a just man will live well, and an unjust one badly." And he continues "And surely anyone who lives well is blessed and happy, and anyone who does not is the opposite" and "Therefore, a just person is happy, and a unjust one wretched. It profits no one to be wretched but to be happy. And so injustice is never more profitable than justice."(Plato 31) It is really good explanation for the ones who are thinking this world life material gaining above everything, because it would actually never make people truly happy. A human needs justice to be happy for real, all other happiness could be only fake ones or the happiness has to have end always. There is no possibility for peace and true happiness without real justice. Justice can lead people to be real happy inside of themselves even in the worst situation that can be thought by material idea of the life, because it can touch the soul, no other possible happiness for the world life can do.

The life of human beings includes spending the years in this world although it is not only meaning of the existence. As it is known that life ends one day for each person, because it is the nature of this world life. Only the idea of being good and just stays forever. It does not mean only that new coming people of the world would realize and remember the good righteous people of history, but instead of that there could be mixed situation and wrong knowledge about the past even. As the history is written by the hands of people too. However, the good and just idea would stay in souls in every condition. Real righteous person would not want benefit himself from the being just human in their lives and going even further not for the endless life as to remembered or realized in the future. Human beings should think the good life above everything such as all material gaining that can be lost after that their lives end.

In conclusion, human beings need justice to make their world better place to live and themselves be truly happier instead of fake happiness of this world. There are a lot of examples can be seen such as fights, wars and harming each other in our world. Real justice is only one solution to reach peaceful world without those fights. It is not depended on only religion beliefs, because non-believer person would need justice to live and feel same as believer do as well. Reaching true justice is not precisely easy as there were always conflicts through the years from beginning of human history. Real justice can exist, but it needs some factors to survive in this world. First of all, every human being should be righteous in their whole life to reach real justice. Although it is really difficult to have real justice, it will be always possible for the ones who are only willing to live the good life instead of living the world’s material life. That is absolutely sure that when a person can think about it for a moment and it would prove him that why there is soul inside of those body that he has in this world and the meaning of all existence. All people need real justice to make their soul happy with being just forever, because there is no possibility to reach that true happiness with all the money people could earn, with all the reputation or fame they could gain in their lives and with the beauty people could get, because one day all they can be gone by death of nature. Only humans’ soul and their hearts could never end.

Works Cited

Plato, Republic. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1992.

Nizamü’l Mülk, Siyaset-Name. Edit. Mehmet Altan Köymen. Ankara: Kültür Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1982

Conservatism, Socialism, Liberalism

General View About The Ideologies

Talking about ideology brings us to the realization that determining the actual meaning of the phenomenon is a very difficult task to complete. Through the times there has not been at least a minimum consensus formed among the studies. From Mannheim to Luhmann and to Marx we can see that each and every one of these great minds thought about ideology in different ways. In general, we can say that ideologies are forms of thinking and ‘consciousness’; moreover they are coherent system of views.

It is also important to state that ideologies and political philosophies are different. Among the ideologies we can find ones that do not have scientifically bases, while political philosophies are all scientifical. The task of the political philosophies is proving, while ideologies can cause revolutions. The measure of the political philosophies is their truths or falseness, while ideologies try to create coherency for the political aims.

The functions of ideology is: criticising (of the current society and other ideologies), propaganda, integrating (they create a logical political group, the 'we' and 'they' separation appears), legitimatization and controlling the people's behavior.

The human being of this world has created many ideologies, many philosophers analyzed them through the passing years, as a result it is seen that there are three important ideologies of contemporary politics that contain many branches that are radical or moderate. The question is if those three important ideologies can be mixed in one pot or not, and if they can create something new that can be better for our world and the people living in it. It is important to mention about the information of those thoughts and then give opinion about the possibilities that they offer.


CONSERVATISM

"To put conservatism in a bottle with a label is like trying to liquefy the atmosphere … The difficulty arises from the nature of the thing, For conservatism is less political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling of living."
/R.J. White/

The birth of conservatism is tied to the French Revolution of 1789. Historians criticized the revolution, because -according to them- on one hand the revolution did not prove the rightness of the rationalism and the optimism of the enlightenment and on the other hand, the traditions of the society were destroyed.

This ideology gives the criticism of the liberalism, the social democrats of Marx and Engels and capitalism as well. Many philosophers had great impact on the conservative ideology.
The first one of them is Hegel, whose systematical theory (radical dialectics) were appreciated by the conservatives. It is important to mention Savigny and Puchta, the founding fathers of the German school of law history, who think that the traditions are number one, even against the law created by the state itself.

Conservatism can be said as the ideology of keeping old traditions. This idea became more important especially in the times when revolutionary ideas became very popular and started to change everything without judging if it was good or bad. Conservatism claims that there are things that should be kept from the old traditions even if the world changes with time.

For conservatives the past is the most efficient way to justify and prove, the past legitimates and proves the values, too. The harmony in society is found in small groups that integrate people well and pass values and traditions from generation to generation. The principle is that the problems should be solved where they are occurred. That means the decentralization of the decision-making.

The question of authority is another point of conservative views that has to be mentioned. The object of authority can be the institution (Parliament), norms, or a person (king, bishop) or a symbolical thing.

About the economy according to Roger Scruton "The conservatives are not fans of the market, like the liberalists, they do not believe that the market solves every problem, that the market is almighty. Conservatives are not supporters of capitalism but the supporters of the market."

This thought makes sense because of the logical background of looking for efficiency, because people did not do everything wrong in the past that there should be huge changes of every tradition to be modern. Conservatism principally means the supporting changes, but only gradual, slow, systematical changes, while preserving the most important values of the history, and I personally agree with that.

Actually, conservatism would not necessarily carry certain truths by looking the whole picture; it would just need the status quo to continue as the nature of the world makes people to be so. Every society has different cultures and that would not mean that the ideology of conservatism changes, but it would show that there is no unified and absolute definition of the conservatism, it means "just" the way. It can be said, it is the road for people to walk. It has nothing to do with the material that the road is built from, such as asphalt, earth or stony.


SOCIALISM

Socialism is supposed to be the first form of the ideology of Communism; the idea is that reaching the best by reason in changes of the time.

According to the socialist thinkers, the history is the history of the classes. The first socialist thinkers thought that the world reaches the state of ideal in a very short time. The ideal for them was the world of communism, thus revolutionary changes are well supported by Communist because it is believed that the world will reach communism all together after passing the steps that should be taken. Karl Marx says that "Socialism would be achieved via class struggle and proletarian revolution which represents the transitional state between capitalism and communism." Socialism would think about the benefits of the society instead of the individual independence.

The revolutions were always done for making humans live in better conditions, it was against cruel regimes or situations that people could not bear any longer (at least in theory).
According to Lenin's the weakest link theory, the first country in which the communism will win will be the weakest as well in sense of economical potential. Then the revolution would spread through the world's countries like wildfire and unite the countries.

The socialist thinkers thought that the base of the changes is the proletariat. They said that the 'leading team of the communism, the communist party' will lead the proletariat till that certain ideal state, where there is no need for law and state.

Some -especially the post-communist countries- call socialism and communism an utopia, because when the ideology became reality it was very different from the imagined (utopist) picture.

Instead of equality, millions of people's lives were destroyed and there was no mercy shown for the ‘enemies of the nation’, ‘enemies of the communism’, ‘enemies of the state’ or the ‘spy of the enemies’.


LIBERALISM

Liberalism was given birth by the French Revolution. The first thinkers that converted these ideas were the Rousseau, Locke, Mill, Bentham, Smith, Ricardo, Tocqueville, and Montesquieu. It is one of the strongest ideologies in the modern world, too (Dahredorf, Hayek and Fukuyama are the most famous thinkers of liberalism).

It gives the total criticism of the feudalism. Its aims include: liberty, equality, brotherhood (liberty, equality, brotherhood); the freedom of propriety and other important issues. The society that mirrors best the aims and wishes of liberalism is the society of classical capitalism.
Liberalism is the thought for individualism against of the old or new that can be authorities. It does not support strong stat. It tolerates any kind of thoughts of each person. It is important to say that Liberalism would not hold any dogma or tradition in the minds of people. It is about the concept to arrange perfect environment for people, no matter what the people think and do in their daily lives in the level of human rights. It includes freedom of speech and thought of providing individual rights. Liberalism is against the strong power that is held in one hand or institution, so the limitation of governmental power is an important issue.

The rule of law over the government ruling; the significant base is the constitution of state is to be accepted and respected, not violated and by people. The rule of law is key concern, because it is useful against the despotism in the country.

Thus, Human Rights and equality can be preserved in the country, because the existence of lack of authority. Liberalists aim to create a weakened state, that's only task is to ensure the human rights. It is important to note, though that human rights do have borders: the human rights of others.


CONJUGATION DISCUSSION

After the brief information about the ideologies, I discuss the possibility of creating a mixed ideology by using all of them in the same pot. It is easy to say that mixing white and black we achieve the grey color. On the other hand, the important is the quality of the object that is colored. It is not possible to mix two solid object's color, but the color of liquids can be mixed and reach the state of grey if the colors of the liquids were black and white. Therefore, the details of the ideologies count: whether they can be mixed or not.

If we take Conservatism as the respect for the orders and the system (and we do not care specifically about which merits and things the system contains), we assume that it is the 'liquid' nature, that allows the ideology to mix with others. That is good side of it, because if it is said that socialism would be the natural wills of humans, conservatism would the protect socialism itself in the country. It is just the form of socialism, the structure, not the idea of revolution (as the only one thing that conservatism would be against is the changes the natural way of human beings living). On the other hand, in the belief of liberalism is the natural way of human beings to be ruled, the conservatists would be searching for the preservation of the liberalism in the state.

Thus, first, it can be said that conservatism is not against that kind of conjugation with other ideologies at the end. Secondly, socialism is looking for the best for the society that people are living in. On one hand., the revolutionary thought of socialism reaching the ideal type of political view and structure at the end can be a solid form against conjugation with the other ideologies to unitedly create a new one, because that would change the thought that has had one, unchangeable truth, also it could make people who have this idea to see other things wrong even though they can be right at that moment.

On the other hand, socialism has some good points as the welfare state for people that could be good example for providing the human rights in the country. The idea of collectivism, though can be again a solid cause that prevents the ideology to be easily mixed with other thoughts. It can mean that property and ownership impossible that are clear human rights, also the elite ruling part of socialism that makes plans for the state and the people in it can be more powerful against the equality of people and also the freedom of thought.

Otherwise, liberalism also can be the objection against all those. It would not be against the thought of socialism naturally because of the toleration, but it can turn against it the end because socialism could want to reach the ideal state, communism from capitalism.

Liberalism can be considered as liquid form because of its features like toleration and freedom of speech, but it is also against any kind of forcing the only one truth (the truth of the majority or the minority) on all human beings. The difference of thoughts serves people right in a sense that we can reach the best for any type of problem.


CONCLUSION

In my opinion, the possibility of conjugation of the ideologies can be increased by the toleration under the liberalism, conservatism and socialism should be limited by the control of liberalism to make it possible. That is something that should be the mixture of respecting the others and claiming the best for ourselves at the same time. Conservatism should be a kind of preservation for any belief or tradition in the country, but it should not be disrespectful towards other beliefs or violate human rights. Liberalism does not force or make people act or believe in something that they do not.

Socialism should provide welfare and equality before law, but it could not mean more than that (for example changing the lives and thoughts of other people). It should not use the power of the government in order to give population thoughts on the ideal of the revolution, because it would be just the thoughts of the elite, who has control over the government- the ideas of socialism should be limited. Liberalism is very significant for making this conjugation, every person shares the idea of that ideology at some level to provide toleration and respect the human rights of others living in the world.

The reality is that there are a lot of people and they could have different thoughts and beliefs, nothing can make everyone have the same thoughts, the only one thing that we can do is to understand this and show respect towards other things, enjoy the rights we can and act as we want under the freedom (and never crossing the legal limits of it).

I would like to end my essay with sentence of famous ‘Nizam-ül Mülk’ in his important work called ‘Siyasetname’ that was written in 9th century, that summarizes my thoughts. He says that ‘People, a society can live with different religions and beliefs and also without any belief even, but the society could not be counted as living without justice.’


Works Cited:

Marx, Karl, Communist Manifesto, Penguin (2002)

White, R.J., As part of introduction to The Conservative Tradition, ed. (London: Nicholas Kaye, 1950)

Béla Pokol- Mihály Bihari: Political Science, Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest, 1998