Justice On

In general, justice includes two implications: the first means what one gains matches what he or she pays, such as between contributions and recompenses, merits and demerits and rewards and punishments, it is too so-called gaining what one deserts; the other means according to the same principle or standard to treat peoples and things that are under the same conditions, it is too generally said that treating equally without discrimination, it includes the meaning of equality. Throughout the ages, many thinkers have all discussed the problem of justice, and some have made a comparable deep-going research. For example, Aristotle had not only discussed the first implication of justice, namely matching of gains and losses, but also concerned the second implication of justice, namely the equality of treating equally without discrimination. Analyzing further, in fact, the two implications of justice are differentiated from distinct aspects of human being. The equality of treating equally without discrimination is generated based on the identity of human being, the cause of people's requiring equality is just based on that they are human being and have the identical property of the category; gaining what one deserts is generated on the difference, it requires the different payments of people under different conditions should match the corresponding gains of theirs.As a matter of fact, the cause that the justice has contents of two aspects based on difference and identity is because the human being itself is the unity of difference and identity. From the angle of the dialectical relation of difference and identity, connecting further people's real patterns of expression (the pattern of expression of the category, the pattern of expression of groups, the pattern of expression of the individuals), we may make the essence of human being to be particularized to three aspects of essence of the category, the groups and the individuals, these three aspects not only prescribe intrinsically the corresponding patterns of expression ofjustice (the justice of the category, the justice of the groups, the justice ofthe individuals), but also prescribe intrinsically the corresponding contents of development and ways of realization of justice. The different thinkers have respectively biased the three patterns of expression of justice. I think that Rawls' theory of justice of fair stressed the justice of the category, Nozick's theory of justice of entitlement stressed the justice of the individuals, but Maclntyre's ethics of social groups stressed the justice of groups, their stubborn biases are based on their different comprehension of humanity. That they make their-theories to be absolute has resulted in their theories being relative, because the human being itself is the unity of three patterns of the category, groups and individuals, justice is too the unity of three patterns of expression of justice of the category, groups and individuals, justice biasing any one of three forms of justice is possibly partial.Our justice is the justice of historical development, the historical development of justice is close and inseparable from the historical development of the human being. The justice is the human being's justice, because persons not only ponders, defines, seeks and realizes the justice, but also the idea of justice comes from the noumenon of human reason. So, not only the existing form of the human being decides the existing form of justice, but also the human being's nature and intrinsic requirements are defining the concrete contents of justice. Therefore the historical development of justice is necessarily based on the historical development of human being, and also finally belongs to the historical development of human being. The justice will correspondingly develop at the level at which human being develops,. Thus we can deeply understand the justice only when we deeply understand the human being, and only understanding deeply the development of the human being we can deeply understand the development of justice too.