Nietzsche on Justice: An Equalization of Suffering - Essay Example

13 March Nietzsche on Justice: An Equalization of Suffering Justice in modern times is sought in every aspect of man’s action. It is defined as the quality of being just, impartial or fair (Merriam-Webster Editors 484). But the word justice comprises complex views and understanding. What others deem to be just and fair can be unjust for other people. Justice therefore has varying definitions depending on the point of view of an individual or group of people. There are many conflicts fought over the concept of justice, but defining exactly what that concept means is very difficult. Sometimes it is defined in terms of equality—as what the author of this essay simply understood the word, everyone should get or have the same amount or treatment taking for example respect, and it should be given to everybody regardless of the status in a community. This definition of justice is the one people are most familiar with today because of the great association of the term with regards to the law and the rights of every individual as a citizen. On the other end of this, justice is served if a person is made to suffer in proportion to the harm inflicted upon others which yields the concept of retaliation. Another way to define justice is in terms of equity—people should get benefits in proportion to what they contributed to producing those benefits, meaning the harder a person work the more he should be compensated. Still another definition of justice focuses on process. Outcome is just if obtained by a fair process or by just means (Conflict research Consortium). According to a source establishing justice is important to any society, but sometimes justice seems to be continually elusive. A question on what is 'justice' and what needs to be done in order to ensure that it exists was imposed. Today, some might argue that true justice does not and cannot exist in a society where people have differing levels of power (Cline). Nietzsche on this behalf shares the sought for the true meaning of justice as an equalization of suffering by going through over the complexities of man’s living. Nietzsche utilizes the methodological principle to find ways between the concepts of justice by citing examples and defining ways that originated from way back man’s history. Justice as an equalization of suffering can be traced from the contractual relationship between a creditor and debtor as discussed by Nietzsche in his essay. Contractual relationship is the very conception of a legal subject and refers back to the basic forms of buying, selling, bartering, trade and traffic. Of how Nietzsche incorporated justice in such a commercial issue of credit-debtor relationship and came out justifiable is tackled upon the context of this essay (Nietzsche 40). In the contractual relationship between the debtor and the creditor promises are made. That in order for the debtor to achieve what is ought to be borrowed, the debtor enters into a bind of honor of promise to pay the creditor. And in order to etch the duty and obligation of repayment into the debtor’s conscience, the debtor pawns something to the creditor by means of the contract in case of none payment. The pawn has to be something that the debtor still possesses and controls— an old example, the debtor’s body, wife, freedom, or life (Nietzsche 40). But in particular the creditor could inflict all kinds of torture and dishonor to the body of the debtor. A cited example was the cutting of as much flesh off as an appropriate payment for the debt (Nietzsche 41). Where is justice in this relationship and example cited in Nietzsche’s essay? Each satisfies the other inasmuch as each receives what he esteems more than the other does. One gives another what he wants, so that it becomes his, and in return one receives what one wants. Thus justice is repayment and exchange on the assumption of an approximately equal power position (Cline). From this example is the stand of true responsibility of paying what a person truly owes. This may sound really barbaric but justice comes in when people will analyze deep and think of the trade that the creditor and debtor have entered upon. It can be contemplated that during the arrangement between the debtor and the creditor it was held fair for both parties otherwise the agreement would have never come into reality. Though it was not humane, during those times the idea of entering in a contract to release a person from a debt even in such inhumane ways is a remarkable courage and responsibility. Because from the time a person enters the debtor-creditor relationship, both parties know of the responsibilities and consequences—a just trade where justice sinks in and can be observed. Another execution of justice was cited as the relationship between the community and its members to have the same basic relationship as the creditor to the debtor. When a person lives in a certain community, that person lives within the benefits of that certain community—shelter, protected, peaceful, worry-free, harmless life (Nietzsche 46). The people living there owe it to the community as the creditor of all those benefits the people are enjoying. In return of the favor, the people have to live abiding by the rules of the community. This setting is most appropriate with today’s contemporary definition of justice that a person will better understand as cited in Nietzsche’s essays. When a person, a debtor, breaks the contract with the community, the cheated creditor will make the person pay up the best it can. The law-breaker not only failed to repay the benefits and advances granted upon him but also assaults the creditor. And to execute justice and fair, the offender is now deprived of all the valued benefits (Nietzsche 46). The equalization of suffering comes in the concept of penal law in the modern community. Today the communal law does not require an eye for an eye, or at least in most humanitarian communities, but to equate for the suffering an offender imposed upon the community by violating the mutual contract in between, certain punishments are imposed. For example, if a person kills somebody and steals from the victim and got caught, that person violated the law and to impose the communal power over the offender is not to take away his life but to put him in prison for a period of time or even a lifetime to serve gravity of his offense as imposed and promulgated by the law. Again by this example, equalization of suffering is met—killing a person will strip off the offender’s freedom and will be placed in prison for life ironically taking the life of the offender—an equal suffering imposed over the offender who imposed suffering to the victim. Punishment according to Nietzsche is simply a copy of normal behavior towards a hated disarmed enemy who has been defeated and forfeited of all rights and safeguards and mercy as well (Nietzsche 47). This definition of punishment seems to uphold its meaning as a victory over an assault. Punishment in many forms puts justice in its rightful position. That in order for it to be equal and fair on both sides of the victim and the offender punishment must be imposed. From these words of Nietzsche holds the interpretation of the author’s view on justice and punishment: Everything has its price: everything can be compensated for’ –the oldest, most naive canon of morals relating to justice, the beginning of all ‘good naturedness’, ‘equity’, all ‘good will’, all ‘objectivity’ on earth. Justice at this first level is the good will, between those who are roughly equal, to come to terms with each other, to ‘come to an understanding’ again by means of a settlement – and, in connection with those who are less powerful, to force them to reach a settlement amongst themselves. (Nietzsche 46) Justice holds the equalization of suffering and balances back the community to its pre-assault phase. It brings the balance back again to the creditor-debtor like relationships in every situation man is faced. It leaves no person below or above the communal law. It is the balancing force that holds every person in contract with the community that any kind of breach of the contract will induce punishment. Though Nietzsche discussed justice in many different forms still the bottom line falls on its true essence which is to equate both sides of what has been done. Nietzsche was right in defining the boarders of justice and today the equalization of suffering somehow guides the penal law to impose certain levels of punishment depending on the severity of any offense. By virtue of the equalization of suffering the law was able to come up with a consensus with the people and the law makers to define the severity of an offense that would equal a considerable punishment. A compromise with the anger of those immediately affected by the wrongdoing attempts to work out equivalents and settle the matter. Above all, the development of these laws overtime paved way for far more humane rational thinking to treat every offence as being something that can be paid off, so that at least to a certain degree, the wrongdoer can pay for the offense by serving the equal amount of years in exile (Nietzsche 46)—an equal suffering provided on both parties. Nietzsche in his work explained the origin of justice. Very few can truly be just towards an offense by someone. Still, the noble man who lashes out against someone who harms him is far closer to justice than the man of resentment, who is poisoned by prejudice and self-deception. Justice prevents revenge out of the hands of the offended party. If a person is offended justice must claim revenge and not the person since justice can only exist in a society that has established laws that can be disobeyed (Nietzsche and Samuel), a law that can draw a line between equality and offense and can impose a corresponding just punishment. Works cited: Cline, Austin. Friedrich Nietzsche on Justice & Equality; does justice only exist between equals. Web. n.d. 13 March 2012 Conflict Research Consortium. Differing definitions of Justice. University of Colorado 1998. Web. 13 march 2012 Meriam-Webster Editors. Webster’s New Explorer College Dictionary. Springfield: Federal Street Press.p 484. Print Nietzsche, Friedrich. Nietzsche on the Genealogy of Morality. Ed. Keith Pearson. Cambridge University Press: New York. 2007. Print Nietzsche, Friedrich and Horace Barnett Samuel. The Genealogy of Morals. Ed. Courier Dover Publications, 2003. Read More