Talk:Justice

Socrates as a character?

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)

Issues with the article

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)

I agree, I deleted where it summarizes justice as being retribution. In my opinion, justice is justification, ideally, if you can justify things all the way through justice has been served. eg. Traffic rules justified based on safety and efficiency, the traffic laws are justified because they enforce the rules, and when you break the rules, the penalties are justified based on how severe the infraction was ie how much they threaten safety or impede efficiency. ~2026-36207-57 (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Phrasing Equity

Propose rephrasing section "Equity". Currently first sentence is vague "connecting law to justice" from WP:PRIMARY. Second sentence cites a blog? Community policing is overspecific for a short overview. Propose replacing with excerpt or rephrase of first paragraph of article "social equity". HudecEmil (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Why is "connecting law to justice" primary? The citation is to a secondary source - have you looked at it to see where those words come from? Also the social equity article is overly specific as equity is related to fairness not limited to concepts of social justice.

Your prior edit had put it under equality where it definitly does not belong as equity and equality are different concepts. Perhaps equity could be explained above in "Equality and Equity before the law" but it needs to be done in an explicit way.

This entire section is a bit of a mess to be honest, so rephrasing would be OK but I think some roadmapping and explanatory language would be better than radical changes. Oblivy (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, to minimize rephrasing propose following changes to "Equity" section:

• removing the blog sentence
• adding a sentence on connection to substantive equality for example: Equity is a principle for achieving substantive equality.[Ref:EQUALITY VS. EQUITY,Martha Minow, American Journal of Law and Equality (2021), https://doi.org/10.1162/ajle_a_00019]

HudecEmil (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The Minow article uses a term "substantive equality" which she cites to Little (which does not appear to be a WP:RS as it's self published). But Little doesn't use the term "substantive equality". This is really sketchy especially since it's introducing a term which isn't widely accepted.

Regarding the blog sentence, fair enough. If you remove it, don't know what else of value is left of that paragraph honestly. Jumping to Marx seems to cast more shadow than light. Oblivy (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree, propose moving the first sentence to social equity article and replacing the section here with excerpt of social equity article including the just moved sentence. That way the first sentence stays in this article. HudecEmil (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)