The Fallacy of Justice¶
Teddy Warner| Dec 2022 | 8–10 mins
Socrates and O’Brien from George Orwell’s 1984 discuss to whom justice is most beneficial. Although O’Brien is a fictional character first conceived when Orwell published 1984 in 1949, this dialogue has been constructed as such where O’Brien has been placed in Socrates’ reality, and each man holds a chronically correct conception of events up to ~400 B.C.E. The dialogue begins with a private conversation between Socrates and O’Brien somewhere in classical Athens after the two had exchanged formalities.
O’BRIEN. Socrates, whom do you believe is the true beneficiary of justice? Justice presents itself in a way that one would believe is most advantageous to the exploited, as it offers a form of protection from those in power, yet I refuse to believe it would exist in our society if it were negative to those who control society altogether.
SOCRATES. O’Brien, I’d argue that justice is no more advantageous to the people being exploited than it is to those in power.
O’BRIEN. Socrates, it cannot be true that justice provides no advantage to anyone. You are aware that some people—many even—believe justice to be a virtue.
SOCRATES. Yes, I’m aware of this.
O’BRIEN. And if these people perceive justice to be virtuous, then it follows that justice must provide some benefit to said people to make them believe so.
SOCRATES. Not necessarily, O’Brien.
O’BRIEN. Well then, if justice is neither beneficial to the people in power, nor to those exploited by them, to whom is it beneficial?
SOCRATES. To find this, O’Brien, we must expand our categorization of society beyond one group of exploiters and another of exploited.
O’BRIEN. How so, Socrates? If some people in society are exploited, then it must follow that there are exploiters of those people.
SOCRATES. Yet exploitation is not equal among the exploited. There then must exist some middle which could be split from our prior exploited group—those who are in control of enough power to not be outright exploited, but also do not wield enough to hold it absolute. Thus we may say three groups exist: a high, the power-wielding; a middle, those in pursuit of the power held by the high; and a low, who are exploited by the prior two in both their pursuit and maintenance of power.
O’BRIEN. Do you mean to imply that these middle people are the ones to whom justice is advantageous?
SOCRATES. Yes, as justice enables the existence of this middle in a society. When perceptions of justice control legislation, exploitation is dampened enough for those who have enough power to exploit others, yet not enough to secure absolute power, to act on their ability to exploit others. Without justice, this distinction drawn between the middle and the low could not exist.
O’BRIEN. To this point, I follow, Socrates, yet I do not understand why justice would not be equally beneficial to the low, as well as a tool to be utilized by the high.
SOCRATES. That cannot be the case, O’Brien, as the benefits of justice only outweigh its consequences in the case of the middle. Justice hinders the ability of the high and limits their power, and while it may provide protection to the low, justice is not sufficient to provide a means by which the low may gain power. Justice, in its most advantageous form, serves as a tool in the pursuit of power for those who do not already have it absolute, yet are in control of enough of it to not be outright exploited—those who are in “the middle.” Tell me, O’Brien, would you agree that the aspirations of a ruling class, those who currently wield the power, must be to maintain and expand their power by any possible means?
O’BRIEN. That must be the case, yes.
SOCRATES. So then, O’Brien, justice must not be beneficial to the high, as it inhibits their maintenance and exertion of power. If we agree that power is central to the aspirations of the high, would it not follow that the middle would share in this pursuit?
O’BRIEN. That is a reasonable expectation, Socrates. Something tells me you are getting ready to outline that the goals of the low also follow this pursuit of power.
SOCRATES. Not quite, O’Brien. In a society where justice is promoted, the low may be protected from much of the potential exploitation of the higher two classes, yet never wield any power themselves. Ignorant of the luxuries of power, the low must only hope for a just society in which they become equal to the middle and high.
O’BRIEN. So then, if the low have goals aligned with justice and are in pursuit of the virtuous equality it, in its purest form, will provide, would the low not be the class to which justice is most beneficial, with the middle and high instead deriving their success from power?
SOCRATES. In a society where justice was integrated in its purest form, you would be correct, O’Brien. The middle and high would lose all power to exploit the low, and thus a society would exist where all men are equal. Yet in a pragmatic sense, a society like this could not come about, not due to a lack of understanding of justice and ethics, but instead due to our acknowledged aspirations of both the middle and high.
O’BRIEN. Why is that?
SOCRATES. In a hierarchical, semi-just society, as we’ve laid out in our discussion of the low, middle, and high, the power of any two classes would presumably be sufficient to exploit the third. With members of society pursuing or maintaining the finite power that society has to offer, any attempt to establish a system of pure justice would be corrupted by the middle attempting to use the low as a means of acquiring power, and would be outright rejected by the high, who naturally will do anything in their power to maintain the power they wield. The only class which may truly achieve their aspirations in such a society is the middle, who hold the power to manipulate justice to enlist the help of the low, revolt against the high, and seize power for themselves, before promptly slinging the low back down into their exploited position.
O’BRIEN. I see now, Socrates, that justice is most beneficial to the middle, and not at all to the low, providing a delusional hope which enables a never-ending cycle of exploitation by the middle and high in their pursuit of power. Yet still I do not believe it to be undesirable by the high.
SOCRATES. Do you mean to suggest that you believe the high would like to lose their power, O’Brien?
O’BRIEN. Not at all. You would agree if it is said that a cycle of power transfer as you’ve described would only be possible with the ignorance of the low, right Socrates?
SOCRATES. That must be true if the middle is continually able to manipulate the low for their own aspirations.
O’BRIEN. Then this ignorance of the low must not only enable the potential for exploitation by the middle, but also the hierarchical structure of society itself. Irrational hope for equality by the low is the belief that leads to the low’s psychological acceptance of exploitation from those in power in the first place. These hopes may be manipulated by both the middle and the upper to direct blame for the plight inflicted on the low to some scapegoat, furthering the ignorance of the low. If those in power paint said scapegoats to be unjust and negative to society, then the low will accept exploitation as a means to enable their societies to thrive. The low will become willing to suffer, and their hopes of justice then justify the tyranny of the high. Thus, Socrates, justice must be beneficial for both those who are in power and those who are in pursuit of it, as it provides a means for the acquisition of power—the trading of power between the prior “high” and the prior “middle”—as well as a justification for the exploitation of the low by the high once in power.
SOCRATES. Then it can be said that any man who wields power, whether the high, with absolute power, or the middle, with enough to exploit the low, is benefited by justice. Although on the surface it seems to hinder their power, justice actually provides the means by which they can acquire and justify their power in the first place.