In Plato, the Just was defined as the good of the individual reflected in the good of society. Plato's Republic was a structure as organized and spirited as the human soul. The qualities that were good about a person were also good for the state. But a state that could not keep the parts in balance would fall into disorder. Justice consisted of leadership, governance, and skill.

Today, some of these values are thrown into question. For example, how much faithfulness to a 'system' is necessary? What if an individual recreates the system for him or herself? Is self-governance ever allowed? Is competence the only measure of functionality? What if a person offers unique services, do they then get unique privileges? Both the old and the new tradition seem to determine that leaders deserve more good treatment, because being well-treated is how they are.

In the contemporary domain, philosophy concerned with justice is often considered 'applied morality'. It is a domain of ethics, which is just one of the primary categories of philosophy, the others being metaphysics, logic, and sometimes epistemology.

In general, the just connotes some aspect of 'The Good,' whatever the good might be. It is the aspect of the Good that allows things to stay in balance. So, Plato might have said that Justice is a system which for society puts everything in its appropriate place. The same could be true of the soul, that the justice of the soul is when everything of the soul is in its appropriate place. Using that reasoning, many contemporaries seem to agree that Justice concerns applied morality.

There is another sense of Justice, perhaps the sense meant by Plato's Theory of the Forms, which is that Justice may concern loyalty to truth. I believe this was a topic pursued in one of his dialogues, and the end result was confusion, not clarity. The West leans on instances like that to clarify the meaning of truth and justice. After that, it became more legitimate to say that a paradox was a form of truth, or that confusion was a real state that must be accepted on its own terms.

A "right" is an area of action wherein no person or government has the moral authority to interfere with. - Examples: to voice an opinion, to associate with whomever one chooses, to practice their religion without interference, etc.

I think that he is saying that the future is predetermined and there is only one out come for each event. Ambiguous would mean that there is more than one possible outcome. What he is talking about is determinism, I think.

If you find this disturbing, some people think that quantum mechanics frees us from determinism. I'll put a link to a lecture Stephen Hawking did on this very subject.

""If others want to define you" - I would say that if someone else uses any means of coercion, be it physical or psychological, sever your connection with them (if you can) as soon as you become aware of their intent.

"other people's opinion of me is none of my business" - I can't agree that this view will lead to an acceptable social existence since your view of your self is, to more than a minor degree, dependent on other's response to you and if you act as if they (meaning their opinions/behavior) mean little to you, you will mean little to them. Being autonomous and independent to a goodly degree sounds good to me but completely ignoring human ties (and this, of neccessity includes other's opinions) does not, unless your wish is to be a hermit( a choice some people make).

For English class, I have to write an essay about my "Perfect Utopia." I have to answer several questions about it, and I'm having trouble answering some of them. Here is a few of them so you can get a better idea. Any answers will be helpful, thanks.

1. What problems in society would you fix?

2. How would you fix them?

3. Where would your utopia be located and why?

4. What would you name it? (For this one I was thinking something in Latin, which translates into Land of Peace or something like that.)

5. What type of government/ruler would you have?

6. What kind of jobs would people have?

7. How would the society function? Are there any unique rules?

Thank you if you choose to assist me with this. It really means a lot to me, so anything will probably be helpful, thank you very much. :)

I think Camus's character in that novel is suggesting that religion does not always live up to who God is and what was meant by Christ or Holy text. Take for instance war vs peace. While most texts deem peace as holy, we have this oxymoron if Holy Wars. Truth is there would be less fighting in the world if we didn't fight about religion at this very moment. It reminds me of Imagine by John Lennon.

But I wonder in a world without belief if peace would be any more our way. Would we not find other causes to fight about? We are a greedy bunch of humans after all.
We don't trust. Much as I love Imagine I doubt it.