Talk:Justice

I have made a substantial set of edits to this article, to improve the lead a bit so it reflects the article as a whole, to make some copyedits (for example, Plato wouldn't be talking about the Abrahamic God, but rather the gods), and generally to try to impose a bit of organizational consistency to the article. It needs a lot of work, and I won't suggest my edits are perfect but they were needed

As it stood, and as large parts of it still stand, the article breaks up theoretical frameworks into multiple pieces. For example, divine command and other religious theories of justice were broken into two pieces and I've put them in one place.

Big issues remain. The section on Theories needs to be cleaned up and probably belongs up at the top, maybe as a replacement for History (some text can be kept). I'm done for now and hope to come back later. This is an important article and it needs some TLC. Oblivy (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

"Plato wouldn't be talking about the Abrahamic God, but rather the gods" Rather unlikely for Plato to speak of multiple gods. Like other Greek philosophers, he apparently believed in a single creator deity. Per the main article on monotheism:

• • "Also from the 6th century BCE, Thales (followed by other Monists, such as Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Parmenides) proposed that nature can be explained by reference to a single unitary principle that pervades everything.^[1] Numerous ancient Greek philosophers, including Xenophanes of Colophon and Antisthenes, believed in a similar polytheistic monism that bore some similarities to monotheism. The first known reference to a unitary God is Plato's Demiurge (divine Craftsman), followed by Aristotle's unmoved mover, both of which would profoundly influence Jewish and Christian theology. " Dimadick (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough, and thanks for the input. What I found was that the discussion was the capitalized God, which implied to me the Abrahamic God. It seemed odd to have it capitalized like that, but I'll have a look at the sources the next time I'm ready to work on it and make a call (unless you want to fix it up according to your understanding!). Oblivy (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I've had a some time to look at this and I think it's correct the way it is. I'm by no means an expert on Plato but I had a look at Euthyphro dilemma and the usage there is "gods" as well. The quote is more or less the same (including plural gods) as in the Euthyphro Dilemma article. The introduction of capitalized singular "God" is in the context of later commentators.

  The link to the Wells article is broken. Try this. In that, Wells, does say that Plato sees a single creator, but I'm not sure how to square that with later references to the Pantheon.

  I happen to have a copy of Plato's Laws (Thomas Pangle Trans.) which was his last dialogue and it talks a bit about the gods (but see my definitely-not-false-humility comment about lack of expert knowledge).

  If someone with greater knowledge wants to make changes, I have no objection other than to say I think the Abrahamic "G" is not appropriate when talking about Plato's own body of work. Oblivy (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps my philosophy isn't at a PhD level. But this article pretty explicitly describes Socrates as a "character". It kind of reads like a punch in the face.

Surely we can't just make the argument that Socrates was merely a construct of Plato's right here in the Wikipedia article for "Justice"? 2607:FEA8:7A4:7C00:5D:E975:C76B:421D (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure he'll be fine. Remsense ‥ 论 04:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not Plato invented him, the phrase "Socrates later wrote…" is hard to swallow. DMaclarenKnapp (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I misquoted. The phrase is "Socrates later used the parable…" DMaclarenKnapp (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I was doing my copy editing rounds and I had this article next on the tab. I've done some edits on it but I noticed that there were significant issues in the article and just wanted to iterate them here outside the reasoning submission. A few of my issues surrounded some of the lead section which seemed to provide a definite statement on justice rather than contextualizing that these discussions of justice come from a specifically Western context.

Other issues I had surrounding this article was a significant dependency on Plato for discussions of justice within Ancient Greek philosophy. While Plato provides a significant backbone for the development of classical Greek philosphy and influenced a large portion of Enlightenment and modern philosophy, there is a significant lack of inclusion of potential contemporaries and potential predecessors or philosophical descendants of his philosophy and their relation to justice itself. I believe what this issue speaks to is a lack of the variety of discussions that surround these philosophical notions and discussions that would be aided by further development.

And the final major issue I have is there is a reductive tone taken and oversimplification that I believe this article fails to grasp so far. As an example, the article references the Abrahamic traditions and refers to Jews, Muslims and Christians rather than referring to Jewish, Islamic or Christian theology. In addition, the article makes direct references to verses from the Christian Bible but does not either reference whatever version that they are referring to and neither does it include different religious scholars to help contextualize these different discussions to help provide better perspective for potential readers.

I believe this article would be significantly aided by including more information or developing the body further. I plan on copy editing further in the coming days but wanted to give my current thoughts on some pressing issues I noticed in this article. Wordy (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Remsense inexplicably deleted the citation to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which gives "the most plausible candidate for a core definition". 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I gave a very direct reason why. Add new material to the body, and then the lead summarizes the body. Remsense ‥ 论 20:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I gave a very direct reason why. No, you didn't. A "most plausible candidate for a core definition" from the SEP clearly belongs in the lead. You just deleted this definition and citation from the article entirely. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You cannot read. Remsense ‥ 论 20:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the SEP definition should be mentioned explicitly somewhere in the body. It currently is not. - Amigao (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)