Even for one who has done the most terrible wrong, does the right to judge him lie in the hands of an enraged crowd, or in a law that keeps due process? Judgment by force and fury alone is fast and satisfying, but in that instant, by what are we distinguished from the thing we mean to condemn?
THE QUESTION THE FILM ASKS
Do I mistake judgment by fury and force for justice, calling the will of the stronger the right?
THE CLASSIC'S ANSWER · ORIGINAL
ἡ δικαιοσύνη οὐ τὸ τοῦ κρείττονος συμφέρον
📜 THE CLASSIC'S ANSWER
Justice is not the advantage of the stronger.
💡 TL;DR
Socrates overturned the claim that justice is the advantage of the stronger.
📝The Classic Answers
Socrates overturned the claim that justice is the advantage of the stronger. If might is right, then a crowd's judgment in fury also becomes justice. But such judgment is only fast and satisfying; the moment we settle the right by the size of force, we grow to resemble the violence we would condemn. Here is why even the most terrible must be judged by a law that keeps due process. When fury wears the face of justice, I choose first to discern whether it is the advantage of force, or the true right.
— ONGO · Curator
🌱Apply It Today
If fury made you want to condemn someone today, discern whether the judgment came from the right, or from the thrill of force.
📖 Classic Source:
Socrates (Plato, Republic).
Ancient text in the public domain; rendered and interpreted independently by ONGO.
The film is honored as an equal questioner; its plot is rendered only as a universal dilemma. The classic source is an ancient text (Public Domain), and the reflection is 100% original ONGO content.
✦
A Bridge Between Eras — the wisdoms this question threads
Reading the new through the old — classics this question awakens.
