Kołakowski: Justice as a Conflict of Values
Justice is not a ready-made recipe, but an eternal field of contention. Leszek Kołakowski argues that the lack of a definitive definition for this concept is not a failure of scholarship, but proof of its complexity. It is a "bitter pill" we must swallow: justice is the constant negotiation of the measure of equality and the boundaries between punishment and revenge. Understanding this labyrinth is crucial for wisely managing social expectations.
Aristotle's Formula: Dilemmas of Classical Division
The classical principle of "giving everyone their due" sounds simple until we ask about the measure. Should merit, needs, or contribution to the common good decide? Aristotle suggested proportionality, but in practice, it is difficult to objectively weigh the gravity of guilt or the degree of poverty. When dogma replaces empathy, justice becomes a screen for one's own biases.
Market vs. Politics: The Clash Over Controlling Chance
The market is inherently amoral—prices and wages result from demand, not moral merit. Kołakowski warns: attempting to destroy the market in the name of "absolute justice" leads to a totalitarian cage. The role of politics is to mitigate the market's blindness where it excludes the most vulnerable, while still preserving freedom of choice.
Rawls, Nozick, and Sen: Contemporary Models of Justice
Modern thought offers three perspectives. John Rawls proposes the "veil of ignorance"—just principles are those we would choose without knowing our social position. Robert Nozick emphasizes the fairness of the acquisition process rather than the end result. Meanwhile, Amartya Sen defines justice as the real capability to act and shape one's own life.
Walzer: Mixing Spheres Destroys Polish Social Trust
Michael Walzer points to "spheres of justice." Injustice erupts when one sphere dominates another—for example, when wealth buys power or political influence secures better healthcare. In Poland, this "colonization" of spheres leads to a deep erosion of trust in state institutions.
Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism: The Religious Mandate of Justice
Religious traditions bring unique rigors. Judaism treats justice as institutional hygiene and a fight against corruption. Islam mandates impartiality even toward one's kin, which was a revolution in clan-based cultures. Buddhism, in turn, sees justice as the internal order of the mind and the inexorable law of karma—harm done to others always returns to the perpetrator.
Literature and History: Paradoxes of the Boundaries of Justice
History teaches us proportion. The Code of Hammurabi limited the spiral of revenge, and Solomon showed that justice is a concern for life, not mechanical symmetry. Socrates chose death rather than break the law, and Gandhi used civil disobedience to expose the injustice of monopoly. These anecdotes show that legality does not always go hand in hand with righteousness.
Legality vs. Justice: The Foundation of Human Dignity
Laws can be tools of oppression. Therefore, the overriding criterion must be equality in dignity. Every person possesses a value that the law cannot violate based on wealth or creed. Justice is born at the intersection of the legal code and moral good; a law that forgets this betrays its mission.
Justice or Envy: The Boundary of Destructive Resentment
Often, the demand for justice is merely a costume for envy. Destructive egalitarianism prefers everyone to be worse off, as long as no one has it better. The test for ethical maturity is the question: do we strive to lift up the lowest, or merely to "cut down" those who have achieved success?
Procedural Justice Guarantees State Stability
The sense of justice depends on procedures. Society accepts rules when they are transparent, understandable, and the same for everyone. If institutions disregard a citizen's right to be heard, they produce anger that destroys the foundations of the state faster than economic crises.
Taxes and Education: Polish Structural Injustice
The Polish tax system often favors the wealthy, burdening the poor with high VAT. In education, "structural Darwinism" prevails—children's opportunities depend on their zip code and their parents' wallets. This is a denial of the Rawlsian difference principle, which permits inequalities only when they serve the most vulnerable.
The Good State Foundation Repairs Public Institutions
The activities of the Good State Foundation focus on eliminating privileges and tightening the system. Proposals regarding the transparency of electoral law or the taxation of institutional assets represent a fight for a state without "sacred cows." Justice here means integrity in managing the common good.
Four Control Questions: A Civic Test of Justice
Before you judge a system, ask four questions: 1. Were the rules known in advance? 2. Were they applied consistently? 3. Were the parties heard? 4. Was human dignity respected? If you answer "no" even once, you have the right to civic dissent. Democracies die from whispers.
Kołakowski: Justice Without Mercy is Bookkeeping
Justice alone does not save a community—without mercy, it becomes cold accounting. Punishment should serve to restore order, not to satisfy victims. Kołakowski reminds us that the hierarchy of values must transcend a dry balance of profits and losses to build authentic human relationships.
The Common Good: Youth Demands of the Political Class
Young citizens should demand from politicians responsibility for the web of interdependencies, rather than just a fight for partisan interests. Justice is a compass that allows us to navigate moral chaos. Instead of seeking definitive answers, we must learn to ask the right questions about the shape of our shared state.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF