The genius of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) also shows in his unique idea of justice. On the one hand, he regarded it as highly desirable in society. Civilization cannot exist without a consistent protection of life, liberty and property.
On the other hand, Schopenhauer acknowledged that human life inevitably entails injustice; sometimes injustices are caused by errors and mistakes; on other occasions, injustice is caused by sheer bad luck that deprives a person of his health, property, or livelihood.
In the latter cases, lamentations help very little. There is no mechanism to remedy all injustices in the world. Even with the best intentions, projects will sometimes fail, relationship break up, and accidents occur.
Schopenhauer praised empathy and compassion as essential virtues to diminish suffering when injustices occur. You’ll find those recommendations in his key book “The world as will and representation” (1818) and in his “Aphorisms of life’s wisdom” (1851).
Schopenhauer’s idea of justice compared to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s
It’s remarkable how profoundly Schopenhauer’s differs from other philosophers in his idea of justice. If we take for instance Ralph Waldo Emerson (1802-1882), we see a subjective focus with an emphasis on self-reliance and individual freedom.
Emerson regarded justice as a result of divine guidance that leads individuals to do what’s right. His essay “Self-Reliance” advises readers to rely on their intuition more than on societal conventions.
According to Emerson, justice depends more on a personal, intuitive understanding of what’s right than on legal and social frameworks. He viewed the collective justice of society as the outcome of each person’s listening to his inner moral truth.
In contrast, Schopenhauer favoured the need of an objective legal system that protects life, liberty and property. He had no trust on intuition and subjective perceptions because he viewed them as easily swayed by the will (“life force”).
Emerson trusted an inner compass for which there is little or no evidence in history. It is an observable fact that individuals will sometimes follow their hearts and make severe mistakes. I regard Emerson as romantic and naive in this respect.
Schopenhauer’s idea of justice was much more balanced and realistic. He was aware that will sometimes disrupts reason and makes a mockery of human judgement. Injustices occur even if you are very self-disciplined, motivated, and hard-working.
Schopenhauer’s idea of justice compared to Lao Tzu’s
In this respect, Schopenhauer’s philosophy is superior to the ideas put forward by Lao Tzu, a Chinese thinker from the 6th century BC. Lao Tzu defines justice according to the concept of Tao (which can be translated as “the way”).
For Lao Tzu, justice comes naturally from the harmony and balance generated by unconstrained human actions. He did not regard justice as a rigid set of rules, but as an organic and spontaneous order.
According to Lao Tzu, artificial rules or impositions should be minimized because they disrupt the natural harmony created by unconstrained human action.
In contrast to Schopenhauer, Lao Tzu is portraying a world that does not exist. Lao Tzu opposed rigid legal systems, but do think that industrial civilization can rely on the individual, intuitive understanding of each person? Obviously not
Without clear, objective rules, nobody would invest money, manufacture products, and create distribution networks. In the absence of a sophisticated legal system, industrial civilization is not possible.
Lao Tzu believed that justice occurs automatically when all individuals embrace simplicity and humility, but what happens when criminals violate someone else’s liberty or property? You cannot trust Lao Tzu’s ideals because they are unrealistic.
For Schopenhauer, a reliable, well-functioning legal system is essential for civilization. Justice is the outcome of objective rules applied with care and dedication. Justice does not happen by chance. It is not the result of spontaneous human action.
Schopenhauer’s idea of justice compared to Adam Smith’s
The Scottish philosopher Adam Smith (1723-1790) wrote two books that shaped the perspective on justice in the times of Schopenhauer. I am referring to Smith’s works “The theory of moral sentiments”(1759) and “The Wealth of Nations” (1776).
In “The theory of moral sentiments,” Smith endorsed the idea that individuals possess an innate sense of justice, just as Emerson did in his essay “Self-reliance.” At that point, Smith was still rather naive in his views of society and economics.
However, seventeen years later, Smith wrote “The wealth of nations” and came up with a more sophisticated idea of justice. He created the concept of “the invisible hand” to explain that the pursuit of one’s interest is furthering the overall prosperity of society because it leads to increased production and trade.
Smith regarded as just the rewards earned by individuals in a free market, but failed to acknowledge that injustice will take place anyway. Even a perfectly free market cannot guarantee a perfect correlation between individual efforts and success.
When it comes to the concept of justice, Schopenhauer was more sophisticated and accurate than Adam Smith, Emerson or Lao Tzu. None of those grasped as well as Schopenhauer the objective legal requirements for a well-functioning society and the morality necessary for remedying occasional injustices.
If you are interested in applying rational philosophy for solving problems, I recommend you my book “Undisrupted: How highly effective people deal with disruptions.”
Related articles
Human flourishing and Schopenhauer’s pessimism
The myth of Schopenhauer’s pessimism
Schopenhauer and the idea of justice