All that I have the right to do is just ?

Introduction

It is customary to say that whatever the law does not prohibit is allowed, therefore just. Moreover, since the law takes into account only the action and not the intention which animates it, it can be said that it is just as soon as it is authorized. Whatever the motives, my act is just, because legal. But justice is not totally confused with legality. Although legal, certain behaviors or lifestyles may seem unfair in the sense of immoral or not in conformity with propriety. Acting within the framework of the act does not guarantee that we are fair. The difficulty of the question arises from the fact that the notion of justice belongs to three orders which overlap without intertwining: law, morality and politics.

Part I.

By definition, all that I have the right to do is just from a legal point of view.

The law allows everything it does not prohibit and everything it does not talk about. From a legal point of view, it is not possible to reproach me for an act which is not prohibited by a law at the time when I commit it. It is assumed that there is a right to do everything on which the law is silent, in addition to what the law explicitly permits. In this sense, acting within this framework is necessarily fair, without the need to question the motivations of the act. These principles are a guarantee for our freedoms. To realize this, one has to imagine what would happen in the opposite situation. If we were to reproach ourselves with what was not mentioned by the law or what was not yet, it would be the door open to the tyranny of arbitrariness. Similarly, if one were to find out what the intentions of the person whose action is outwardly conforming to the legal framework to judge whether it is truly just, one would switch to another form of tyranny: that of seeking a Moral transparency impossible, pretending to enter the heads of people. It is fundamental for our individual freedoms that the law should be distinct from morality, and that the judge should not become a master of virtue and an inquisitor.

Part II.

Legality does not exhaust the register of justice.

Legal action is not necessarily fair if it is approached from a broader point of view, that is, moral and / or political. I have, for example, the right to enrich myself without limits. But it is possible to estimate that, although individually I conduct myself neither illegally nor immorally (I do not steal anyone, I respect all laws, I redistribute part of my income, etc.) The resulting inequality between the rich and the poor is unfair. This state may seem unfair to the extent that there is no justification for such a discrepancy, neither my personal merit nor the relative lack of merit of others.

Acting in strict compliance with the law does not mean that the context and outcome of the action are necessarily just. It also means that the purpose of my action can be unjust without it being (it is legal and my motivations are not in themselves immoral). From this point of view, all that I have the right to do is not, by definition and automatically, just.

From a more moral point of view now, although one has the right to live in a dissolute, licentious way, authorizing all pleasures, being spending more than economical, in the manner of Callicles in the Gorgias de Plato, can not one estimate as Socrates that this is an unjust existence? Indeed, without harming anyone but himself, Callicles seems unworthy of his status as a man, he gradually reduces himself to the state of an animal, living in dependence on his needs and abandoning Any ambition to give meaning and form to its existence. This questioning invites us to consider the possibility of a hierarchy of lifestyles that we should respect under penalty of injustice, regardless of legality.

Part III.

There are several forms of justice and several sources of legitimacy.

"Having the right does not guarantee to be fair. The legitimacy of legitimacy depends on the legitimacy of the political institution that makes the law, and also on conformity with universally shared moral values. The Vichy regime was, from an institutional point of view, legitimate and its legislation encouraged the denunciation of the Jews. However, it would be unwise to say that because we had the right to denounce, just to do it.

To too sacralize the right, risk the injustice. In order to avoid this, it is necessary to consider that individual rights are only one means of expressing political will, that this is exercised through a permanent debate to go beyond the strictly legal approach to collective problems. For this debate to take place, several forms of legitimacy must be considered: legal, moral and political. As for the fact that the sovereign people have done, it can undo it and all that I have had the right to do today is just from a strictly legal point of view. Eternity and the rest of the Serum always the case.

Moreover, from a more moral point of view and without pretending to impose a norm in this matter, it is important to affirm, drawing inspiration from Socrates, who has the right to choose his life and to lead it as one hears, also Absolute It does not mean that we can not discuss the moral value of conduct. On the right to falsehood, inconstancy, infidelity, obstinacy, sloth, & c. That is not why we consider ourselves right in principle, far from it.

Conclusion

This question is an invitation to question the relationship between law and justice and to mobilize the distinction between legitimacy and legality. But his difficulty with the fact, under a classical appearance, was in fact very specific, as it related to the relationship between the right of persons and justice and not the couple legality / legitimacy in general, as is often the case Where one has to wonder if all that is legitimate is just for example. On the mat, the more familiar the more classic car.