A kingdom founded on injustice never lasts

Stoic Wisdom & Philosophy Of Seneca / Monday, June 18th, 2018

According to Wikipedia:


Injustice is a quality relating to unfairness or undeserved outcomes. The term may be applied in reference to a particular event or situation, or to a larger status quo. In Western philosophy and jurisprudence, injustice is very commonly—but not always—defined as either the absence or the opposite of justice.

The sense of injustice is a universal human feature, though the exact circumstances considered unjust can vary from culture to culture.

While even acts of nature can sometimes arouse the sense of injustice, the sense is usually felt in relation to human action such as misuse, abuse, neglect, or malfeasance that is uncorrected or else sanctioned by a legal system or fellow human beings.

The sense of injustice can be a powerful motivational condition, causing people to take action not just to defend themselves but also others who they perceive to be unfairly treated.

Relationship with justice

Professor Judith Shklar has written that Western philosophers tend to spend much more time discussing the concept of ‘justice’ rather than ‘injustice’. On the other hand, she states both historical writing and fiction use instances of injustice as subject matter far more often than justice.[4]

In philosophy and jurisprudence, the dominant view has been that injustice and justice are two sides of the same coin—that injustice is simply a lack of justice. This view has been challenged by professors including Judith Shklar, Thomas W Simon and Eric Heinze, who consider that justice and injustice are independent qualities.

So, in this minority view, you can increase the justice of a situation without reducing the injustice. Heinze has even gone as far as to argue that an increase in justice can actually cause an increase in injustice.

A relatively common view among philosophers and other writers is that while justice and injustice may be interdependent, it is injustice that is the primary quality. Many writers have written that, while it is hard to directly define or even perceive justice, it is easy to demonstrate that injustice can be perceived by all.

Read More  It Is A Rough Road That Leads To The Heights Of Greatness

According to von Hayek, the earliest known thinker to state that injustice is the primary quality was Heraclitus, whose view was echoed by Aristotle and dozens of others down the centuries. Hayek said that writers often express the idea that injustice is the primary concept “as though it were a new discovery”, suggesting the view is rarely directly expressed in theories on Justice. But Hayek went on to say that legal positivism has proved that injustice, not justice, is the primary quality.

Sense of injustice

A metaphorical injustice eating the innocent in Guillaume Rouillé’s Justicie atque Iniusticie. The legs of the beast include adolescés sine obediétia (disobedient youth) and plebs sine disciplina(undisciplined commoners).[7]

Scholars including Judith Shklar, Edmond Cahn and Barrington Moore, Jr. have surveyed anthropological and historical work on injustice, concluding that the sense of injustice is found everywhere there are men and women; it is a human universal.[4][8][9] These writers, and others like Simone Weil, Elizabeth Wolgast and Thomas W Simon, hold that the sense of injustice is a powerful motivational condition — unlike the sense of justice which tends to be conceived in more abstract ways, and tends to inspire contemplation rather than action.[2][10][11][12]

Cahn held that, for evolutionary reasons, humans who witness others being subjected to injustice can respond as though it was an act of aggression towards themselves. There can be an immediate, visceral activation of the flight or fight system. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. puts it “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.[13] A 2012 study published in Psychological Science found that even babies have a sense of injustice and dislike having it violated, even when they witness events that do not directly effect them.[14][15]

Read More  Quality Over Quantity

In the field of jurisprudence, Cahn has argued that it is an important skill for lawyers to know how to rouse a jury’s sense of injustice — something best done by appeals to the particular, not by abstractions or boilerplate type statements. Barrington Moore asserts that reasons why populations often submit to oppression for long periods of time is that they consider it inevitable and so their sense of injustice is not aroused. He says that a widely shared sense of injustice is an essential, though not sufficient, cause of rebellion. Writers including Simone Weil, Elizabeth Wolgast and Judith Shklar have said that an aroused sense of injustice can be an essential prerequisite to action needed for protecting the weak and afflicted.


A common cause of injustice is human selfishness. As Plato described at length in The Republic, people will often commit acts of injustice when they calculate it is in their interests to do so. Plato also adds that “The highest reach of injustice is to be deemed just when you are not”. Human injustice is not always caused by attempt to gain unfair advantage or malice; it may be simply the result of the flawed human decision making.

For example, studies have found that judges sitting on review boards are less likely to reach decisions favorable to applicants depending on how long it is since the judges had their last food break. Misuse and abuse with regard to a particular case or context may represent a systemic failure to serve the cause of justice (cf. legal vacuum).

Too Long, Didn’t Read (TLDR)

  1. Basically injustice means an/the absence of justice, they are 2 sides of the same coin
  2. Injustice happens everywhere in the world, from all cultures, though the exact circumstances may be different, but it exists everywhere alright
  3. Common cause of injustice is human selfishness, eg people committing acts of injustice when they deem it in their interest to do so or sometimes flawed human decision making
Read More  A Gift Consists Not In What Is Done Or What The Gift Is, But The Intention

In my understanding and humble opinion, the world runs on a main principle of “you reap what you sow” aka the the Law Of The Harvest – if you plant apple trees, it makes direct sense that you’d get apple trees and consequently, apple fruits. That’s in farming and agriculture.

The same law applies to relationships, finance, health, etc and all their subsets.

Examples being:

  1. If you decide to cut out 150 calories every day from your meals 3x per day, in one year, more likely than not, you would have lost weight. If you decide to jog every day for a whole year, you will increase the fitness and health further.
  2. If you decide to invest $150 per week 52 weeks a year with, with 5% return on investment, you’d have $8190 one year later. If you compound it, it grows even more.
  3. If you decide to sow love, patience, hope into your relationship with you ___ (wife/family/friend etc), one year later, trust me, you’d get back love, patience and hope.

This is the basic Law Of The Harvest – it’s universal.

Herein, applying to “A kingdom founded on injustice never lasts” – a kingdom that is based on injustice, will just mete and invest and reinvest into injustice, hence reaping fruits of injustice, which is a vicious cycle where the injustice aims to equal or greater the injustice prior to it. Or understanding the people and kingdom it renders its injustice, does or will it not reap what it sows?

Of course, it’s an eventuality.

Can you see it – it’s basically a time bomb waiting to implode.

Hence why a kingdom founded/based on injustice will never last.