release № /

UDC 316.48(075.8)

BPC 88.53ya73

THE CONCEPT OF “JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE” IN THE MODEL OF A CONFLICT SITUATION

Korablin Andrey Vladimirovich

St. Petersburg State University

Faculty of Law (1992)

Abstract: The article examines the categories of justice and injustice as key elements of models of conflict situations. The study is based on philosophical and conflictological approaches covering three historical epochs: antiquity, the Age of Enlightenment and modernity. On the example of the works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant and Morton Deutsch, the evolution of the understanding of justice is analyzed — from the ethical, legal and religious dimensions to the socio-psychological and cognitive. It is shown that the idea of justice, being the moral justification of the behavior of the participants in the conflict, is at the same time a factor in its emergence and a mechanism for its settlement. Particular attention is paid to the concept of the “information model of conflict” and the relationship between the subjective perception of injustice and the formation of conflict relations.

Keywords: justice, injustice, conflict, conflictology, information model, Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, Morton Deutsch, social psychology, philosophy of law.

THE CONCEPT OF “JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE” IN THE MODEL OF A CONFLICT SITUATION

Korablin Andrey Vladimirovych

Saint-Petersburg State University (1992)

Abstract: The article considers the categories of justice and injustice as key elements of models of conflict situations. The study is based on philosophical and conflictological approaches covering three historical epochs: antiquity, the Age of Enlightenment and modernity. On the example of the works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant and Morton Deutsch, the evolution of the understanding of justice is analyzed – from the ethical, legal and religious dimensions to the socio-psychological and cognitive. It is shown that the idea of justice, being the moral justification of the behavior of the participants in the conflict, is at the same time a factor in its emergence and a mechanism for its settlement. Particular attention is paid to the concept of the “information model of conflict” and the relationship between the subjective perception of injustice and the formation of conflict relations.

Keywords: justice, injustice, conflict, conflictology, information model, Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, Morton Deutsch, social psychology, philosophy of law.

INTRODUCTION

Conflict is the result of a special type of communication and behavior, and affects almost all spheres of human existence: personal, domestic, professional, etc. The concept of “conflict” is used in many fields of knowledge – psychology and pedagogy, sociology, political science and linguistics. According to many experts, psychology has the most developed history of the study of conflicts, conflictology is a young science and its “track record” is more modest. Starting from the 19th and 20th centuries, conflictology has been developing on the basis of theoretical methods, but over time, due to the expansion of the field of research of the problem, the methods have become practical in nature and have become more disciplinary.

For a long time, conflict was interpreted as an “anomaly,” a disease that must be eliminated from the life of a society striving for integration and harmony. But life has proven time and again that “anomalies” occur too often to be called an aberration or an exception to the rule.[1] Therefore, in the course of time, there was a need to develop modern methods of conflict regulation and management, which in turn required a thorough study of this phenomenon, the causes of its occurrence and impact on society makes justice a great idea, in the name of which feats are performed, songs, films and philosophical works are dedicated.

Many believe that the greatness of the idea of justice is in its practical unattainability, which makes it an eternal goal. Justice, which serves to morally substantiate the position of each participant in the conflict, is of concern to everyone, regardless of the presence or absence of a theoretical basis, but only actions can change something. Thus, the problem of cognition of the concepts of justice and injustice, their role in the emergence of conflicts is one of the key tasks of modern science. knowledge and practical means corresponding to modern society, an inexhaustible interest in the search for a universal formula for the implementation of justice will allow to form a high-quality legal framework, manage and regulate conflicts, which explains the relevance of the chosen topic of the article: “The concept of “justice and injustice” in the model of a conflict situation”.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the concepts of justice and injustice, their role in the context of the model of a conflict situation and the formation of these concepts on the example of the works of thinkers of three different historical periods.

The object is the concepts of justice and injustice in the context of conflictology.

The subject is the study of the role of justice and injustice in the emergence of conflicts.

According to the goals, the objectives of the study are defined:

1. Study of the main theoretical aspects of conflicts, models of conflict situations, the role of justice and injustice in a conflict situation.

2. Analysis of the formation of the concepts of justice and injustice in the historical section, their evolution and review of the works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant and Morton Deutsch for their vision of the role of justice (injustice) in conflicts.

3. Analysis of the features of the study of the concepts of justice and injustice of conflict by representatives of three different eras, identification of strengths and weaknesses of theories. Evaluation of methods for searching for a universal formula of justice and determining the vector of their development.

The goals and objectives of the study determined the structure of the work, which consists of an introduction; two chapters, the first of which examines brief theoretical information about conflicts, information models of conflicts, the concepts of justice, injustice and their role in the emergence of conflicts, and the second analyzes the works of the greatest representatives of philosophical thought of three different historical epochs – Aristotle, I. Kant and M. Deutsch to determine the role of justice in conflicts; a conclusion containing conclusions based on the results of the study and a list of sources used. When writing the article, the theoretical method of analysis of literary sources, electronic resources was used, as well as the author’s works and practical studies presented by Internet sources were studied.

Chapter 1. General information about the models of conflict situations, the concepts of justice and injustice and their role in the emergence of conflict.

1.1 Types of conflict situations, causes of their occurrence, models of conflict situations.

The concept of conflict is used by many branches of science, respectively, this term has many meanings and definitions, but they are all united by the word “struggle” – internecine strife, rivalry and wars. Thus, it can be said that: “Conflict is understood as the most acute way of resolving significant contradictions that arise in the process of interaction, which consists in the opposition of the subjects of the conflict and is usually accompanied by negative emotions.”[2]

Conflicts are inevitable companions of mankind throughout history and “the most important aspect of human interaction in society, a kind of cell of social existence.”[3] Like electrons, the basic structural units of terrestrial matter, which have the properties of waves and particles overnight, conflicts that make up patterns on the fabric of human relationships are both a system and a process at the same time. A conflict as a system has its own structure – a construction of stable connections that identify it and distinguish it from other phenomena Conflict.

Conflict as a process is characterized by dynamics, stages of its development, stages of tension.

According to one of them, there are such conflicts as: physical (simultaneous desire of several parties to seize the same space), political (imposition of politics on the other side), ideological (confrontation of intellectual value systems) and legislative (disputes about statements justified by generally recognized procedures). The combination of all these types of conflicts gives rise to war. Conflict tends to become war, and war tends to become protracted and global.[4]

The emergence and development of conflicts can be caused by both objective (for example, organizational and managerial) and subjective reasons, the latter include socio-psychological and personal. At the same time, it should be noted that there is not a single conflict that would be caused by purely subjective or objective reasons, so there is a complex of subjective-objective reasons.[5]

A prerequisite for the emergence of a conflict is a certain situation that provokes confrontation – this is the so-called conflict situation. As a rule, any difficult life situation that a person faces can develop into a conflict and then transform into a conflict. According to many experts, in order for a conflict to become a reality, it is necessary for its participants to realize a certain situation as a conflict situation – this is the very “trigger” the emergence of a conflict. The subjectivity of reflecting the characteristics of the interaction of the participants in the conflict is manifested in the impossibility of an unambiguous relationship between the emergence of a conflict and the presence of objective factors.[6] In contrast to neutral communication, in the course of a conflict situation, perception is strongly distorted, the degree of its subjectivity sometimes goes off the scale, and these changes are reflected in the process of the conflict and its completion. Any person does not just react to the situation, but “determines” it and himself in it, as if modeling the construction of the conflict.[7] Accordingly, we can say that the information model of the conflict (image) is a full-fledged element of the structure of the conflict. In conflictology, this term appeared relatively recently – in the late 60s of the last century.

For example, counting on a certain share of benefits, everyone relies not on theories or concepts, but exclusively on their own opinion. The model of a conflict situation consists of the opponents’ ideas about themselves (their goals and motives, etc.), similar ideas about the “opponent”; everyone’s ideas about the how others perceive him; ideas about the environment in which specific relations are formed. “Thus, a certain variable arose between the factors of the objective situation and their perception – the individual’s position in relation to this situation, his place in the system of relationships with the corresponding rights, obligations, degree of responsibility, etc., which had a stronger influence on his assessment of the situation than the objective aspects of the situation itself.”[8]It turns out that the reality and the model created by the participant can have different degrees of distortions, deviations, correspondence and inconsistency.

There are four cases of the degree of correspondence between the image and reality:

1. There is no conflict as a socio-psychological phenomenon (a conflict situation objectively exists, but is not recognized by the participants)

2. The conflict is inadequately perceived (the conflict situation objectively exists and is recognized by the participants with significant deviations from reality).

3. Objective absence of conflict – false conflict (the relations of the parties are mistakenly perceived by them as conflictual).

4. The objective existence of the conflict is perceived by the participants adequately.

Opponents form an information model of the conflict in relation to each other in the following way: “Assigning responsibility for the conflict to the other, as well as endowing him with negative features, is typical for the formed image of the situation, on the basis of which the opponents build their further actions.”[9] The concepts of justice and injustice are closely related to the problem of forming an information model of conflict.

1.2 The concept of justice. The Evolution of the Concept of “Justice” in the Historical Cross-Section.

A just, peaceful society without strife and military conflicts has been the dream of mankind at all times. It would seem that there is nothing difficult, you just need to put wise people at the head and come up with fair laws. The greatest minds have wondered what justice is, and there are a huge number of opinions about what should be understood by this term. Justice is a kind of oughtness, correctness, and at the same time a very subjective category.

Each era touched upon the topic of justice, and each historical stage gave its own definitions of this concept, according to the conditions in which contemporaries lived and their ideas about the world around them, the order of things, the social system and the place of the individual in it. Human rights were often identified with justice or defined as one of the legal principles.

Initially, primitive mankind subordinated justice to mysticism – religious sacrifices, including human sacrifices, are taboo. The beliefs of the people were not connected with a sense of justice, and it did not matter at all how a person behaved throughout his life to where he went after death. Then, for many centuries, the concept of justice was included in the theological picture of the worldview.

Ancient Greek civilization gave rise to two opposing concepts. The first is the popular concept, which proclaimed the gods to be in charge of human justice. The gods could behave as they pleased, and man accordingly had to submit to fate. There were two types of justice in this concept – internal behavioral (within the social life of an individual) and external – intergroup (interfamily). The greatest philosophers Plato and Aristotle created a different concept, free from religious roots, identifying justice and morality. This is the so-called universalist concept, in which morality was equal to the philosophy of law. According to Plato, justice is the highest virtue.

Followers of the ancient Greek school of Stoicism gradually confused justice with the law of the universe, to which all people are equally subject. The Romans use these ideas, developing the equalizing aspect of justice – “justice is a constant and unchangeable will to give to each his own.”

The ancient Hebrew prophets develop the idea of justice in three stages, conditioned by the stages of the existence of Judaism – justice of the first stage – Divine (ideal), then religious (strict observance of rites, Phariseeism), then eschatological (justice of the salvation of the world). The last interpretation of justice is associated with the period after the Jewish captivity and subsequently it undergoes changes associated with the advent of Christianity.

The Christian religion leaves the concept of justice in the theological field, basing it on grace and limiting it to mercy and love, respectively associating it with “God’s order,” his will. The main purpose of justice is to punish sins. It is proclaimed that the support of justice can only be the Church as a manifestation of the City of God on earth. Accordingly, the state, independent of the church, has nothing to do with justice. Thomas Aquinas makes modifications to this interpretation; he distinguishes between human justice (natural law) and divine justice (eternal law). That is, the state can also be a pillar of justice while preserving church supremacy. Thomas Aquinas, like Aristotle, divides justice into equalizing and distributive, but puts his own meaning into these concepts. Thus, that which equalizes justice is the field of exchange and contract, and that which distributes is the creation of administrative power. The disciples of St. Thomas continue to take steps to remove the concept of justice from the ecclesiastical department.

The complete secularization of justice took place after the Renaissance, when human society transferred the idea of salvation to the sphere of worldly human activity. This did not happen all at once, but in stages: In the sixteenth century, political events took place that somewhat strengthened the theological concept of justice (the theory of monarchomachy). According to the monarchomachy, the contract between the people and the government, sealed by God, is justice. In this epoch, the school of “natural law” was established, based on natural justice, obvious to the human mind, excluding any supernatural reasoning. Within this school, there were two trends – individualistic and universalist (social). Both of these trends were secularized and rationalistic, but at the same time, the ideas of justice within each differed quite significantly.

Thus, continuing to evolve, the concept of justice in the seventeenth century, according to Francis Bacon, is “that which unites people and creates the foundations for law.” Thomas Hobbes (mechanistic, naturalistic individualism) identifies justice with the administrative will of the state and calls it “the rule of reason that forbids us to do anything that is harmful to our life, from which it follows that justice is a natural law.”[10] Rousseau most clearly presents justice as a product of subjective consciousness equal for all individuals. Kant asserts that justice is a categorical imperative (this issue will be considered in more detail later in this work). Rousseau, Kant, and Locke were representatives of the traditions of the individualistic understanding of law, their justice is a synthesis of freedom and equality, and, accordingly, a feudal regime, an absolute Monarchy and class privileges are illegal.

In the 17th century, the Dutch lawyer and scholar Hugo Grozio published the work “On the Law of War and Peace”, in which he asserted that justice exists by human nature, and not by the will of God.

Gottfried Leibniz, who was the finalist of the philosophy of the 17th century and the predecessor of German classical philosophy, defined the concept of the social whole as the joint action of rational beings. Representatives of the concept of social law Leibniz, Grotius and their followers believed that “that which rationally perfects society is just.” The end of the conflict between the individual and the universal is the synthesis of the whole and its parts, justice reconciles and surpasses principles equalization, distribution and universalization, being an intermediate link between love and reason. At the same time, as Leibniz and his followers believed, the boundaries between the concepts of justice and morality should not lead to their complete separation. This theory is continued in the works of many thinkers of the 19th-20th centuries and is of particular importance for the development of the idea of international justice, because each social group is considered as a sphere of justice, regardless of the role of the state, respectively, focusing on cooperation in society beyond the state.

Early 19th century – German dialectical philosopher Georg Hegel speaks of the relativity of the concepts of justice and injustice, and according to his philosophy, the former can turn into injustice at any moment.[11]

In the 19th century, the first socialist doctrines appeared, criticizing inequality, based not on the idea of justice, but on the ideas of economic prosperity, love and brotherhood. According to Marx, justice is the expression of vital economic relations that take into account a specific economic situation, and depends on the existing mode of production, everything that does not correspond to this mode of production is unjust .

In 1858, the book “On Justice in the Revolution and in the Church” was published, its author was the French politician and philosopher Pierre Proudhon, who appeared before the court for this work and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years. This is the most voluminous work devoted to justice, according to which it is an intermediate state between collective forces and the social spirit. To implement justice, it is necessary to establish equality in the position of members of society by improving state legislation (protection of socially vulnerable segments of the population, etc.).

The theory of utilitarianism (D. S. Mill) says: what is just is that which brings the maximum amount of benefit, while only the quantitative criterion of utility is taken into account, which means that if many people benefit or enjoy the misfortune or suffering of a few, this should justifiably be sacrificed. Neoliberals (G. Samuel, L. George) take a concept close to Proudhon and demand the establishment of equality in the initial position, i.e., a minimum standard of living. Spencer (integration through differentiation) draws conclusions similar to Kant’s, but at the same time is based on the natural law of survival of the fittest and fights against the policy of supporting disadvantaged segments of the population.

The Russian philosopher Solovyov also contributed to the understanding of justice. He identified justice with morality, with altruism – to ensure the equality of people, not to offend anyone, to help everyone.[12]
Thus, the ideas of the classics created an excellent basis for the subsequent development of this field of study.

Modern classics of conflictology, according to many experts, are the Anglo-German sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf, and the German American Lewis Koser, who are followers of Marx and Simmel. Their ideas became the basis of modern conflictology, continuing to develop the main directions of their predecessors. Thus, Dahrendorf continues Marx’s dialectical theory of conflict, and Coser continues positive functionalism, relying on the ideas of Georg Simmel.

The modern concept of justice is most fully developed by John Rawls in his work “The Theory of Justice”. According to his work, justice is honesty and it is based on the following principles: equality is the initial state of people and obtaining benefits at the expense of others is unacceptable.

As can be seen, the development of the field of research in the field of the concept of justice was not easy, and in the course of time it undergoes significant changes – from God-given to established by law as a limiter of natural freedom.

1.3 Justice and injustice in the model of conflict situations.

It is only necessary to violate the usual way of human life, encroaching on something of value for him, as the concepts of justice and injustice are included. On the basis of this, many concepts of justice have been built – from the ancient scales of Themis to the modern concept of the “pendulum”.[13]

As a result of collective activity, each participant invests certain efforts and expects to receive a reward. The participant who received the expected reward believes that this is justice, and those who expected more, but received less, respectively speak of injustice. more than they are ready to give us, accordingly, a person will always strive for ideal justice. Thus, human dissatisfaction with reality, that is, injustice, is a driving force for the improvement of society, capable of uniting people in the name of a great goal – “The concept of injustice includes the idea of inequality, moreover, inequality that is unacceptable, undeserved, unacceptable, infringing on our own dignity. Perhaps it is in the infringement of self-esteem (which every person is endowed with, although to varying degrees) that lies the reason why the fight against injustice will always find its supporters.”[14]

The impact of injustice on the further actions of the offended party depends on the qualitative and quantitative nature of this particular injustice. In addition, injustice can be both a short-term act and a state when an individual constantly feels injustice due to the established order of things. In the latter case, there is either a reaction of opposition or the effect of addiction and the perception of injustice as a norm of existence. If the quantitative characteristic of injustice can be characterized, for example, by the strength, duration and intensity of impacts, then the qualitative criterion depends on the individual’s value system. Thus, the intensity of a person’s reaction will be higher, the more significant the interest in his scale of values.

Thus, justice and injustice as a value and anti-value are interpenetrating categories and inextricably linked. This fact cannot be ignored, otherwise it turns out that there is an ideal just action and an equally ideal unjust one. If we ask the question: “Is justice necessary in a perfectly harmonious society of saints?”, then the answer suggests itself: no, justice by its nature presupposes the existence of conflicts, this is the prism through which we perceive life (social, political, economic, personal relations, etc.). Disregard for justice in any of the areas of civilization has more than once changed the course of the river of human existence. It should be noted that each party to the conflict has its own idea of justice (and there can be many of these ideas) – each party has its own vision of the conflict situation, its own information model, its own options for solving the problem. Therefore, despite the significant place of justice in assessing the behavior of actions and their consequences, it cannot serve as a criterion for regulating relations between the parties to the conflict. In order for this criterion (the concept of justice) to be adequate, it must coincide with the conflicting parties. In this case, in search of justice, a third disinterested party appears, capable of considering the problem from an objective point of view, relying on some generally accepted norms – fixed forms of legislation or certain traditions. But even in this case, justice will be only partially less controversial, because the source of the norm can also be challenged, or its application, interpretation, etc.

It should be mentioned that there is a largely independent, autonomous object of socio-philosophical research – social injustice. In fact, it is the very disproportion in the distribution of life goods, resources of existence, perceived by the consciousness of the individual. Social injustice is a natural initial property of human relations in political, economic and social terms.

The social sciences and humanities paid special attention to the study of social justice and injustice. The special actualization of this problem coincided with tense periods in history – revolutions, ideological modernizations, socio-political changes the ideological value of the winning groups. An example of this is the revolution of the early twentieth century in Russia.

The growth of destructiveness associated with injustice in the public consciousness is predetermined by unfair distribution. These destructiveness of consciousness, subjective tensions are of great importance for human social existence. Three groups of social trends in the spiritual sphere can be distinguished, which at present should become the subject of a close socio-philosophical analysis.

The first group is the genesis, the development of resources of social destructiveness of the group class consciousness of social strata that are not sufficiently endowed with social benefits. We are talking about hired workers and all those who acquire the benefits of life through labor activity, i.e., do not possess property resources, other accumulated material wealth, or power. This direction was deeply studied within the framework of the Marxist political-economic paradigm.

The next direction in the genesis of the “spirit of injustice” is associated with the injustice of existence, existence and the creation of material, financial resources, private property, personal power, which are inadequate and contrary to the social, moral and legal norms of society. At the moment, this direction does not have a sufficiently deep systematized analysis.

The third direction is determined by types, models of interaction between subjects that differ in terms of life benefits.

The variety of social relations in this direction can be structured into the following groups:

1 Hostile relations

2 Antagonistic relations; 3 Customer relations; 4. Partnerships; 5. Solidarity relations.

In his reflections on the dialectics of justice and injustice, the famous scientist Paul Ricoeur writes: “… I deliberately put the unjust before the just, which, however, is very often and clearly intentionally done by Plato and Aristotle.”[15] And further, regarding the theoretical, philosophical aspects of the study of the idea of justice, he notes that “the philosophical theory of justice… finds its first support in the assertion that the self forms its identity only in the structure of relations, where the dialogical dimension prevails over the monological…”[16]

The problem of justice in the model of conflict situations is very carefully studied by our contemporary Morton Deutsch, whose works, along with the doctrines of justice of representatives of two other epochs – Aristotle and the classic of the philosophy of the Enlightenment Immanuel Kant – will be considered in more detail in the next chapter of this article.

Chapter 2. Formation of the concept of justice and injustice, understanding of their role in the emergence of conflict situations on the example of the analysis of the works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant and Morton Deutsch.

2.1 Aristotle and his “Ethics”.

Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher, the author of an impressive number of works that covered all branches of science of that time. He left behind a rich legacy of numerous manuscripts, although connoisseurs claim that only a quarter of them have survived to this day. Aristotle is the founder of grammar, logic, rhetoric and made many new discoveries in zoology. His ideas enriched sociology, politics, natural science, philosophy of art and anatomical knowledge, exerting a huge influence on these areas of science to this day.

Aristotle’s father, Nicomachus, was the personal physician of the Macedonian king, he was engaged in natural sciences and medicine, which had a significant influence on the formation of the young philosopher’s hobbies. At the age of about 15, Aristotle remained an orphan and was raised by his guardian Proxenus. who gave him an initial education and instilled in him a love of science and reading. To continue his studies, Aristotle went to Athens, where he lived for the next 20 years. In the Academy, the talented student was noticed by the founder himself, Plato, whose ideas became the predecessors of Aristotle’s philosophy. Friendly relations were established between them, and they remained so for many years, although later Aristotle departed from the teachings of Plato. According to Plato’s philosophy, in addition to the world of the senses, there is a separate world of ideas (general concepts of human consciousness). Aristotle, on the other hand, believed that the idea should be contained in itself, and therefore denied the existence of such a one-sided, independent world of consciousness, saying that the idea and the phenomenon are inextricably linked.[17]In general, Aristotle divides his works into four sections: theoretical knowledge (physics, mathematics and metaphysics), practical knowledge (ethics, economics and politics), creativity (poetry, rhetoric) and a separate group of works “Organon” (logic), which, as mentioned above, is the cornerstone of Aristotle’s philosophy. Rational logic is presented in his works so fully that subsequent generations practically did not bring any additions.

In accordance with the purpose of this article, more attention is paid to the consideration of the treatise “Ethics”, which scholars call “Nicomachean Ethics”. In particular, Book V, devoted to justice – justice (dikaiosyne) and injustice (adikia).[18] The Ethics was written by Aristotle for his son Nicomachus, and it sets forth the basic concepts of the moral life of the human individual.

According to the treatise, Aristotle derives the concept of justice from the people’s understanding of its nature – religiosity. However, to be more precise, it was Plato who did it. Both philosophers did not distinguish between justice and morality, they unified the concept, identifying the concepts of philosophy of law and morality. Aristotle makes modifications to Plato’s original theory and in his interpretation justice presupposes a certain measure of equality: “Thus just equality is the mean between “more” and “less,” and gain and loss are “more” and “less” in opposite senses, i.e., more good and less evil, gain, and vice versa, loss. The mean between the two is just equality, which we define as just, and therefore corrective justice implies a mean between loss and gain.”[19]

Aristotle divides justice into two types: arithmetic (based on identity) and geometric (proportional, equivalent): “… There are several kinds of justice, and that there is another side with virtue in general; it remains to find out what it is and what it is.”[20]

If we give a brief description of arithmetic justice, then it is equalizing justice, which is within the competence of the judge. Thus, civil law transactions, punishments and compensation for damages take place according to its rules. As for geometric justice, this is justice that distributes common goods, rights and property in accordance with the merits of a particular member of society and should be in the legislative department. as a system that correlates equalizing and distributing justices – this is due to the fact that the highest good for Aristotle is equilibrium (the golden mean): “Since the unjust is unjust and the unjust is unjust, it is clear that there is a certain middle ground between [the extremes of] the unjust. This is just equality (to ison), for in what action “more” and “less” are possible, in that just equality is also possible.” Thus, according to Aristotle, justice does not consist in the equal distribution of goods and justice, but consists in the correct assessment of the amount of labor and the degree of its complexity, measured in money: “It seems to some that the retribution of equals is unconditionally just… However, the retribution of equals cannot be subsumed either under the concept of distributive justice, or under the concept of equalizing justice.”[21]

Let us dwell in more detail on the fact that, sharing the provisions of Socrates and Plato about the coincidence of the just and the lawful, Aristotle notes that the concept of justice is connected with the idea of the state, since law is a criterion of justice and a regulating norm of political communication. In turn, political law is divided into natural (having the same meaning regardless of recognition or non-recognition) and conditional, determined and established by will. Aristotle considers the relationship “master – slave” as a family relationship, not a state relationship (let us recall that he, having become a widower, married the slave of his deceased wife):

«… It is useful and just for one person to be a slave, for another to be a master… The misuse of power benefits neither master nor slave; for what is useful for the part is also useful for the whole, what is useful for the whole is also useful for the soul; and the slave is a kind of part of the master, as if animated and separated.”[22]

Summing up, we can say that the main cause of conflicts, according to Aristotle, is the lack of equality and the distortion of the principle of justice. Without a doubt, he was a gifted personality, combining an unprecedented scope of philosophical thought and active political activity. His social position allowed him to do so much for science that no one could do for a long time after him. As a true patriot of Greece, Aristotle dreamed of restoring the freedom of the Greek city-states under the rule of the humane Macedonian kings. Bringing up Alexander the Great, being himself lofty views on the best in man, Aristotle did everything in his power to pass this on to the crowned pupil. But unfortunately, a cruel tyrant very soon arose from the philosophizing monarch, who wanted not a free and prosperous Greece, but its slavish submission. After Alexander’s death, Aristotle was confronted with the conservatism of the Greek patriots, which was fatal to an enlightened philosopher, and these patriots also saw Aristotle as an enemy. According to some sources, they were ready to deal with him in the same way as they did with Socrates, then Aristotle took poison voluntarily, as a person “… for whom even death itself remained an act of wisdom and imperturbable calm.”[23]

2.2 Immanuel Kant on Justice.

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) was a professor of logic and metaphysics, a prominent representative of German classical philosophy, in many sources referred to as the pinnacle of philosophical thought until the twentieth century.

Kant was born in the city of Königsberg (Prussia), where he lived a measured quiet life, working in the teaching field. Let’s add a few more touches to his portrait – being an inveterate bachelor, he loved the company of intelligent and well-mannered women, his friends respected and appreciated his lecturing talent, in addition, Kant was famous for his extraordinary punctuality. It is said that only once he was late for his daily walk – being carried away by reading the work “Emile” by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It was his ideas that Kant would later call the factor that led him to the “Copernican revolution” in philosophical thought.

As for the historical scenery, during this period changes took place in society associated with the rapid development of science, the states of Europe followed the path of enlightenment, and, accordingly, the church and religion as a whole significantly weakened their positions. The traditional foundations of all spheres of existence, which have existed for many centuries, have been undermined so deeply that a new system of society is being created, in which a free personality with an individually responsible form of behavior appears.[24]

In accordance with these changes, changes were also required by the concepts of morality, justice, and the philosophy of human rights in the emerging new society. The study of justice issues occupies a special place in Kant’s philosophy, in his work “Metaphysics of Morals”, the philosopher notes: “… if justice disappears, life on earth will no longer have any value.” He also said that nothing angers us more than injustice; all the other kinds of evil that we have to endure are nothing compared to it.”[25]

The fundamental principle of justice in interpersonal relations is the freedom of the individual. In the future, this principle will become the ancestor of liberal concepts of justice (starting with the works of Michael Doyle, an American lawyer). Legislation.

In 1793, the treatise “Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone” appeared, where Kant was the first to distinguish between the concepts of moral and legal justice. Reason dictates to man what should be law for him, to deny these prescriptions is the same as to deny the moral nature of the individual. consisting of the “court of conscience” – moral justice and the “court of law”. The primacy of legal justice over moral justice is indisputable – this runs counter to the previously existing principle of substantiating legal justice on the basis of divine (moral). In addition, legal justice must be imposed by force and only then can we count on the implementation of moral justice in society. “Kant considered justice as a measure of the moral dignity of coercive power, as an indispensable condition for moral recognition of power by subjects, respect and trust in it.”[26]

According to Kant, justice should be the highest basis of power for issuing laws and the highest virtue of the one who implements these laws. “Justice is the unconditional norm of an individual placed (or placed) in the position of a judging and coercive authority – the highest moral maxim of arbitral decisions.”[27]

The philosopher distinguishes between punitive and distributive justice. In the first case, we are talking about the imposition of a just punishment equal to the damage caused (for example, criminal punishment for a crime), in the second – a fair and well-deserved reward. Concern for this justice is the first duty of power; all other goals are subordinate to this and are secondary. Thus, the desire to improve the well-being of society cannot be higher than justice and be in contradiction with it. Kant’s categorical imperative is a certain concept of morality: “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of everyone else, in the same way as an end, and never treat it only as a means.”[28] Punishment is a requirement of the categorical imperative. According to Kant, there is a conflict between the due and the being, between the moral ideal and reality.

In the essay “The Idea of Universal History…” Kant asserts that “justice in its most perfect form” forms the best basis for the rivalry of human forces and contributes to the effective and dynamic development of social relations.[29] In addition, justice can contribute to progress when it rises above all the aspirations of power and is recognized by it as a primary duty, a moral duty.

2.3 Morton Deutsch and the “law of social relations”.

Morton Deutsch (1920–2017) was a well-known American sociopsychologist, researcher, and educator who specialized in social and personality psychology, as well as the psychology of war prevention and conflict management. In 1986, he founded the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution at Columbia University. In addition, Deutsch was a member of the editorial boards of many publications, was a member of American and international psychological societies, and associations, in some of which he served as chairman.

The most famous are Morton Deutsch’s studies related to conflict, competition and cooperation, and fair distribution. He established that a conflict can occur both in the context of cooperation and in the context of competition, and the process of conflict resolution directly depends on the context in which it occurred. The context of the conflict is the expectations and norms of behavior common to the participants in the conflict situation.

Morton Deutsch was a student of Kurt Lewin, and accordingly the research of this scientist had a significant influence on him. Levin invents a fundamentally new phenomenological approach that combines two concepts – behaviorism and psychoanalysis. This makes it possible to study personal and intergroup conflicts on both sides with the help of an experiment using a certain method. It consists in the fact that factors that create a conflict situation are introduced into the group under study. Then, in the course of observing the reaction of people in the course of the conflict, the factors influencing the situation are recorded and, on their basis, conclusions are drawn about the patterns of the conflict. At the same time, the most important characteristic of the group is considered to be the system of interdependencies and interactions between its members. These characteristics of social relations became the main subject of Deutsch’s many years of research.

Morton Deutsch carried out his first experiments in 1948, when he wrote his doctoral dissertation. In it, the scientist examines the cooperation and competition of groups of schoolchildren, analyzes the processes that underlie the actions, relationships of the members of the studied groups and ways of resolving conflicts. Particular attention was focused on the aspects of trust – suspicions, negotiations, the process of making deals experimental games that imitate the necessary conditions for studying the main question, namely: what is decisive in the direction of conflict resolution (destructive or creative). As a result, it was established that interaction generates cooperation and leads to a constructive resolution of the conflict, while competition leads to destructive conflict. There are two types of interdependence of goals: contributing and opposite, as well as two types of actions of an individual – effective and deteriorating. As a result of combinations of different types of interdependencies and types of actions, conclusions were drawn about their influence on socio-psychological processes. These data were subsequently used by many experts in the field of conflict. Deutsch himself used the results of studies of situations with mixed motivations in the development of the Draft Law of Social Relations: in typical cases, this or that relationship generates a social relationship of the same kind. This law was used in experiments on fair distribution, as a result of which the following conclusion was reached: the principles of distribution – equality or justice – have a clear psychological orientation: once applied, each of them subsequently forms a preference according to a similar principle. The main attention and experimental analysis is paid to the situational nature of conflict.

Deutsch notes that from the moment he became interested in and involved in the topic of justice, he eventually realized that most of his research and writings in the field of conflict could essentially be seen as a study of the problem of justice. Let us recall that the understanding of justice consists in the moral justification of the position of the participants in the conflict, and the understanding of injustice is the basis for the emergence of a conflict or a continuing confrontation. Deutsch considers injustice in relation to distribution, in his study of interpersonal clashes, distributed resources are grouped into six main categories: love, status, information, money, material values and services.

Let us consider the system of grounds for understanding injustice in the process of distribution, according to Deutsch[30]:

  1. Injustice associated with the nature of the distributed good (discrepancy between the good and the nature of merit, low-quality services);
  2. Inequities related to the roles involved in the distribution process (mismatch of qualifications, self-interest);
  3. Injustice in relation to the style and timing of distribution (secret nature of the procedure, delay in time for receiving a reward or punishment);
  4. Injustice associated with the values underlying the distribution (objective or subjective inconsistency of the chosen values);
  5. Injustice related to the rules (non-compliance of evaluation criteria);
  6. Unfairness related to measurement procedures;
  7. Injustice associated with decision-making procedures (inconsistency of the method of decision-making).

As Deutsch himself noted, the last type of injustice is the most important, since the results of many socio-psychological studies show that in the case of collective decision-making, the participants in this process are more inclined to take into account decisions and implement them. If the decision-making procedure is initially questionable, then everything else (principles, distribution rules, etc.) is also questioned. In addition, it is very important to note the connection between the concept of “deprivation” (reduced or complete loss of the ability to satisfy basic needs), and more specifically “relative deprivation” with the problems of justice and injustice. Relative deprivation is a person’s feeling of dissatisfaction in comparison with others, or a feeling of dissatisfaction associated with the position of his group against the background of other groups. It has been proven that the stronger the relative deprivation, the stronger and brighter the feeling of injustice will be expressed. According to Deutsch, the results of theoretical and practical work in this area allow us to formulate the following statement: “any attempt to change the existing relations between two parties is more likely to be accepted if each of them expects to receive some net benefit from the changes than if each side expects that the other will benefit at its expense.”[31]

Deutsch’s work was marked by prizes and awards. With the help of the experiments developed by Deutsch and Levin, the Russian researcher V. S. Ageev obtained results in the course of the experiments that indicate not only the negative impact of intergroup conflict, but also the positive one, in addition, a factor was discovered according to which the course of the conflict differs depending on the level of development of the group of subjects.

CONCLUSION

Summing up the results of the study, we can draw the following conclusion: from time immemorial, people have been thinking about creating an ideally just society without conflicts, but, unfortunately, it is impossible to satisfy the demands of all individuals at the same time, at least because of the lack of resources. This fact, as well as the desire for justice, ensure social and economic progress. In our time, many people consider it their duty to raise the topic of justice, for example, they write a book that replenishes the shelves with political and philosophical research, and speculate on the struggle for its ideals. Party leaders bring people to demonstrations, or even stage coups under the auspices of restoring social equality. But as history shows, such uprisings in reality almost never end with the reign of justice, because first the victors destroy the defeated, and then “the revolution devours its children.” At the same time, the reclaimed resources are not redistributed in favor of all those who suffer.

The importance of justice and injustice was understood both in the time of Aristotle and in the modern era, and, of course, by the leading luminaries of modern science. The doctrines of justice, set forth in the works of great predecessors, played a huge role in the development of philosophy, ethics, sociology and political science, retain their significance today. Modern scientists draw ideas from the works of Aristotle and Kant that help to move further along the path of understanding the place of justice in the models of conflict situations. Thanks to this, scientists in various fields have done a lot of work in the problems of conflict research, created many theoretical and practical methods for working with conflicts.

As a result of the analysis of the works of thinkers of three historical milestones, it can be concluded that the understanding of justice changed in accordance with the transformation of the social and social life of people, the conditions of their existence, the degree of satisfaction of primary needs and the awareness of the place of man in the scale of existence. Subsequent generations of philosophers, turning to their predecessors, expanded and deepened their theories in an attempt to create an ideal recipe for building a just society and to avoid wars. These are Aristotle’s Ethics, and the great works on Kant’s “practical philosophy”, but there is an opinion according to which the problem of justice belongs not only to the verbal plane, because the same concept can be said in different ways, and each concept is a kind of verbal construction, and what is said can be understood differently. Therefore, modern experimental research by scientists such as Morton Deutsch (and his predecessors and followers) is of particular value.

In the age of intensive development of the principles of freedom, equality and recognition of individuality, conflict has significantly changed its form. Information technologies and means of communication form the mentality of the population in a certain virtual cyberspace. Today’s society is characterized by multiculturalism and multinationality, accordingly it is necessary to change approaches to the study of conflicts and the causes of their occurrence; by forming models of conflict situations in advance, it is possible to find ways to prevent them at the early stages.

To this day, no one has been able to fully implement any socio-political system based on any theory of justice. At present, the factor that unites people in the desire to move forward is precisely the existing injustice. It provokes decisive actions, sometimes even extremely radical. Therefore, it is very important to summarize all the experience and scientific heritage of past eras in order to choose the right path in which a society riddled with conflicts will stabilize and not split under the onslaught of new conflict situations, provoked, among other things, by the lack of justice.

REFERENCES

1. Antsupov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. “Dictionary of Conflictologist”: Textbook for Higher Educational Institutions. – 2nd ed. Moscow, UNITI-DANA Publ., 2002, 591 p.

2. Antsupov A.Ya., Baklanovsky S.V. Conflictology in Schemes and Comments: Textbook .– 4th Edition. Moscow: Prospekt LLC, 2015

3. Grishina N.V. Psychology of Conflict. 2nd ed. St . Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2008, 544 p.

4. Gurvich G. D. Filosofiya i sotsiologiya prava: Izbrannye sochineniya [Philosophy and sociology of law: Selected works]. — St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University, Publishing House of the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg. State University. – 848 p., 2004

5. Zdravomyslov A.G. Sociology of Conflict: Russia on the Ways of Overcoming the Crisis: Textbook for Students of Higher Educational Institutions. – 2nd ed., add. – Moscow: Aspect Press, 1995. – 317 p.

6. Kibanov A.Ya., Vorozheikin I.E., Zakharov D.N., Konovalova V.G. Konfliktologiya: Uchebnik [Conflictology: Textbook]. – 2nd ed., revised and supplemented – M.: INFRA-M, 2004, 240 p.

7. Losev A. F., Takho-Godi A. A. Platon. Aristotle – M., Mol. gvardiya, 1993 – p.364

8. Riker P. Fair/ Transl. by B. Skuratov with the participation of P. Khitsky. Moscow: Gnosis: Logos, 2005.

9. Ryabtsev V.N., Shitiv M.A. Konfliktologiya: Khrestomatiya – R., RSU, 2001 – p.488

10. Soloviev E.Y. Categorical imperative of morality and law. Moscow, Progress-Traditsiya Publ., 2005. 416 p. (In Russian)

11. Shevtsov V.M. Mezhnatsional’nye konflikty: mekhanizmy ikh resheniya [International conflicts: mechanisms of their resolution]. Moscow, GAVS Publ., 2003. – 44 p.

12. Aristotle. Biography [Electronic resource] http://rushist.com/index.php/greece-rome/2204-aristotel-biografiya

13. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics [Elektronnyi resurs] http://www.lib.ru/POEEAST/ARISTOTEL/nikomah.txt_with-big-pictures.html#5[Elektronnyi resurs] [Elektronnyi resurs] [Elektronnyi

14. Aristotle Ethics (To Nicomachus) book V [Electronic resource] http://kant.narod.ru/arist.htm

15. Bulgakov V.V., Bulgakova D.V. Ponyatie «spravedlivost» na istoricheskikh etapov razvitiya obshchestva Elektronnyi resurs: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ponyatie-spravedlivost-na-istoricheskih-etapah-razvitiya-obschestva

16. Vilkov A. A. Traktovki spravedlivosti i nespravnosti i ikh ispol’zovanie v sovremennykh politicheskikh protsessakhElektronnyi resurs:http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/traktovki-spravedlivosti-i-nespravedlivosti-i-ih-ispolzovanie-v-sovremennyh-politicheskih-protsessah#ixzz4eg9TKPnD

17 I. Kant, “K vechnomu miru,” Elektronnyi resurs:https://www.civisbook.ru/files/File/Kant_K_vechnomu_miru.pdf

18. Kant I. Kritika prakticheskogo razuma [Criticism of practical reason] // Elektronnyi resurs: http://www.e-reading.club/book.php?book=25300

19. Kant I. Lectures on Ethics. Moscow, Respublika Publ., 2005. 430 p. (In Russian)

20. Kirsanova Olga Viktorovna Spravedlivost’ i pravo v eticheskikh vzglyayakh I. Kant i G.V.F. HegelyaElektronnyi resurs: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/spravedlivost-i-pravo-v-eticheskih-vzglyadah-i-kanta-i-g-v-f-gegelya#ixzz4ey7Lusm x

21. Kamenskaya M. V. Sotsial’naya nespravedlivost: sushchnost’ i proyavleniya Elektronnyi resurs: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sotsialnaya-nespravedlivost-suschnost-i-indikatory-proyavleniya#ixzz4egBthmgo

22. Olenin N.N. The Human Dimension of Justice Electronic resource: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/chelovecheskoe-izmerenie-spravedlivosti

23. Rozhdestvensky Yu.V. Teoriya ritoriki [Theory of rhetoric] Libros.:http://www.libros.am/book/read/id/362387/slug/teoriya-ritoriki#TOC_idp142320

24. Rusakova O. F. Kontseptsiya spravedlivosti v levom politicheskoy diskurse [The concept of justice in the left political discourse]http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kontsept-spravedlivosti-v-levom-politicheskom-diskurse

25. Legal Reference Book Electronic resource: http://www.bibliotekar.ru/4-0-2-2-yurisprudenciya/93.htm

  1. Grishina N.V. Psychology of Conflict. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2008, p.34. ↑
  2. Grishina N.V. Psychology of Conflict. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2008, p.21. ↑
  3. Zdravomyslov A.G. Sociology of Conflict: Russia on the Ways of Overcoming the Crisis: A Textbook for Students of Higher Educational Institutions. – 2nd ed., add. – Moscow: Aspect Press, 1995. ↑
  4. Ryabtsev V.N., Shitiv M.A. Konfliktologiya: Khrestomatiya – R., RGU, 2001. ↑
  5. Antsupov A.Ya., Baklanovsky S.V. Conflictology in Schemes and Comments: Textbook .– 4th Edition. Moscow: Prospekt LLC, 2015 ↑
  6. Grishina N.V. Psychology of Conflict. 2nd ed. – St. Petersburg: Piter, 2008, p.192. ↑
  7. Grishina N.V. Psychology of Conflict, p.199. ↑
  8. Grishina N.V. Psychology of Conflict, p. 210. ↑
  9. Antsupov A.Ya., Baklanovsky S.V. Conflictology in Schemes and Comments: Textbook. ↑
  10. Bulgakov V.V., Bulgakova D.V. Ponyatie «spravedlivost» na istoricheskikh etapov razvitiya obshchestva Elektronnyi resurs: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ponyatie-spravedlivost-na-istoricheskih-etapah-razvitiya-obschestva ↑
  11. Legal DirectoryElectronic resource: http://www.bibliotekar.ru/4-0-2-2-yurisprudenciya/93.htm ↑
  12. Vilkov A. A. Interpretations of Justice and Injustice and Their Use in Modern Political Processeshttp://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/traktovki-spravedlivosti-i-nespravedlivosti-i-ih-ispolzovanie-v-sovremennyh-politicheskih-protsessah#ixzz4eg9TKPnD. ↑
  13. Olenin N.N. The Human Dimension of JusticeElectronic resource: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/chelovecheskoe-izmerenie-spravedlivosti ↑
  14. Rusakova O. F. Kontseptsiya spravedlivosti v levom politicheskoi diskursElektronnyi resurs http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kontsept-spravedlivosti-v-levom-politicheskom-diskurse ↑
  15. Riker P. Fair/ Transl. by B. Skuratov with the participation of P. Khitsky. Moscow: Gnosis: Logos, 2005. ↑
  16. Kamenskaya M. V. Social Injustice: Essence and Manifestations Elektronnyi resurs: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sotsialnaya-nespravedlivost-suschnost-i-indikatory-proyavleniya#ixzz4egBthmgo ↑
  17. Aristotle. Biography [Electronic resource] http://rushist.com/index.php/greece-rome/2204-aristotel-biografiya ↑
  18. Aristotle Ethics (To Nicomachus) Book V [Electronic resource] http://kant.narod.ru/arist.htm ↑
  19. Ibidem ↑
  20. Ibidem ↑
  21. Aristotle Ethics (To Nicomachus) Book V [Electronic resource] http://kant.narod.ru/arist.htm ↑
  22. Rozhdestvensky Y.V. Theory of Rhetoric [Electronic resource] Libros.:http://www.libros.am/book/read/id/362387/slug/teoriya-ritoriki#TOC_idp142320 ↑
  23. Losev A. F., Takho-Godi A. A. Platon. Aristotle – Moscow, Mol. gvardiya, 1993. ↑
  24. Kant I. Lectures on Ethics. Moscow, Respublika Publ., 2005 ↑
  25. Kirsanova Olga Viktorovna Justice and Law in the Ethical Views of I. Kant and G.W.F. Hegel Elektronnyi resurs: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/spravedlivost-i-pravo-v-eticheskih-vzglyadah-i-kanta-i-g-v-f-gegelya#ixzz4ey7Lusmx ↑
  26. Soloviev E.Y. Categorical Imperative of Morality and Law. Moscow, Progress-Traditsiya Publ., 2005. P. 213. ↑
  27. Ibid., p. 213. ↑
  28. Kant I. Kritika prakticheskogo razuma [Criticism of practical reason] // Elektronnyi resurs: http://www.e-reading.club/book.php?book=25300 ↑
  29. Kirsanova Olga Viktorovna Justice and Law in the Ethical Views of I. Kant and G.W.F. Hegel Elektronnyi resurs: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/spravedlivost-i-pravo-v-eticheskih-vzglyadah-i-kanta-i-g-v-f-gegelya#ixzz4ey7Lusmx ↑
  30. Grishina N.V. Psychology of Conflict. 2nd ed. St . Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2008. ↑
  31. Ibid., p. 292. ↑