"Justice can only exist when people obey laws that are not to their liking."

This is a 45-min analytical writting question example for the GRE.

If laws that are not to peoples' liking, not obeyed, there will be no justice. People's lack of adherence to laws that are not to their advantage is the reason for the justice system. The essence of justice is that every individual's rights and property are protected. There is no justice when people break the law which is made evident by the people's need for a court system. In places where people do not need to obey laws, there is a high violation of human rights. Human predisposition for selfishness is a powerful counteractive force to the existence of justice.

Humans, like all living entities, favor themselves over others. It is genetically favorable to behave this way, and to an extent, a survival mechanism. This instinct to survive is influential to the degree that people willingly violate a law to satisfy their drive for something even if it has no bearing on their survival. The Menendez brothers murdered both of their parents in order to inherit all that they own, despite the lavish lifestyle the brothers were already living. If people were permitted to behave freely chaos would follow.

Crime and human rights violations are higher in societies that do not follow laws. What motivates perpetrators to commit anything from minor offences to crimes against humanity is personal gain which comes at a loss to the party being victimized. Currently in Darfur, Sudan, there is a massacre taking place. The government chooses not to follow laws set forth by the UN because of its desire for more power. The result is a complete obliteration of justice made overt by the slaughter of thousands. Only through potentially paying a cost greater than the benefit of breaking the law justice will pervade.

Degree of punishment is the ultimate determinant in the manifestation of justice. The degree of justice is inversely proportional to the crime rate which is determined by the severity of penalties. Singapore employs very harsh punishments towards people who choose not follow a law: varying from inflicting physical pain to capital punishment. Its crime rate is a fraction of what it is in the rest of the first world indicating that the degree of justice there is relatively high.

Eliminating people's ability to interact would eliminate the need for obedience. If people cannot come into contact whatsoever then it does not make a difference whether they obey or not since they cannot violate each others rights. In an insane asylum there are people living in solitary confinement and so long as they remain in their area they do not threaten anyone's else's rights; justice may exist.

Interaction between people is an inevitable component of life and where there are interactions, violations will occur. Therefore, in order for there to be justice in such a setting, laws must be obeyed especially when they are not to one's advantage.

This sentence makes no sense to me.


But, should citizens of Darfur follow laws set by that government? What if that government passed laws mandating exile for all people of a particular ethnicity. Should the people of that ethnicity just go?


Not necessarily. It all depends on how you define "justice." Under totalitarian regimes where lots of people are locked up unjustly, the level of street crime tends to be very low. Does the low crime rate really say anything at all about the level of justice?

My point here is that your argument is very simplistic. It does not take complexities into account. The GRE is looking for more complex thinking.

Simone is right -- you need to start by defining what you mean by "justice". Virtually any definition you choose is going to make supporting the statement much harder than disagreeing with it. Consider the most basic definition of 'justice,' the giving to each that which their actions have merited, an eye for an eye, etc. What if a nation has laws that inflict punishment that a person doesn't merit, or assigns rewards that they haven't earned? So, for instance, what if a law says that a person can be reduced to property merely by virtue of his or her skin color? Such a law is unjust, by the definition of justice given above. What if a law were passed allowing the government to take a portion of wealthy entrepreneurs' revenue to support programs meant to help the homeless? That law, too, would be unjust, by the definition above.

There are other definitions of justice you could go with, though many end up being variants on the one I've been using, but very few of them line up inexorably with the law. You could of course argue that justice is merely a social construct, a subjective notion reflected by and sustained by the law, but you don't seem to be doing this at the moment . . .