Erol Göka
It is possible to witness the injustices in the world and cry out, “Is this your justice, world?” while persistently working to secure justice and a fairer world. However, this requires a firm perspective—one that does not conclude, “Do not strive for justice; it is futile!” or “Do not seek refuge in God in the face of life’s injustices!” by merely citing examples of wrongdoing.
Justice has always remained a vague and ambivalent concept in Western thought and behavior. After the Gaza genocide and Trump’s rhetoric of power, their already ambiguous stance has completely lost its credibility. To the overwhelming majority, concepts such as “international law” and “human rights” have become nothing more than a mere deception—a façade of justice, an outright falsehood.
In this article, we will focus on the legal and philosophical foundations of why this is the case. In the next piece, we will discuss why, despite the West’s vague and contradictory stance, we must not abandon the struggle for justice and a just world.
The Lawyer Indifferent to Justice: Hans Kelsen
The renowned public jurist Hans Kelsen believed that justice is a quality that may exist in a social order but is not a necessity; rather, it should be regarded as a secondary human virtue. According to Kelsen, justice would forever remain an unattainable dream of humanity, never to be defined in absolute terms—one could only speak of the subjective fairness of individuals.
Kelsen was a Viennese Jew and a contemporary of Sigmund Freud. Although he was not Freud’s disciple, he exchanged ideas with him and took part in intellectual discussions. I do not know where Kelsen stood in the debates on the Israeli issue and Zionism until his death in 1973. However, I am aware that after his passing, his book The Illusion of Justice, published in 1985, firmly established the notion that social justice is unattainable. In his treatise What is Justice? (AlBaraka Publications, trans. M. Kaya, A. F. Çağlar, 2023), one of the key arguments he presents against the possibility of reaching a consensus on justice is the irreconcilable contradiction between “the individual’s right to life as the highest value” and “the nation’s interests, the right to kill in war, and capital punishment.”
“According to one of the established moral assumptions or beliefs, human life—the life of each individual—is the highest value. From this perspective, taking a human life, killing someone, is absolutely forbidden, whether in war or even in the execution of the death penalty. As is well known, this is the view held by antimilitarists and those who oppose capital punishment on principle.
However, the belief that the highest value is the welfare and honor of the nation leads to a contradictory moral stance. According to this view, every citizen must sacrifice their own life in war when required for the nation’s interests and honor, and they must kill those deemed enemies of the nation. In such cases, imposing the death penalty for serious crimes appears legitimate.
It is absolutely impossible to reach a rational, scientific decision between these two opposing value judgments.”
This is what Kelsen argues.
In this article, we will not dwell on Kelsen’s ideas or their connection to Jewish thought (as we have previously examined a similar contradiction in the ideas of the Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas, known as the philosopher of the “other.” See: http://www.erolgoka.net/benim-levinasim/). The reason for mentioning him here is to highlight his role in the West’s ambiguity and inconsistency regarding justice.
Now, let us move from law to the realm of thought. Let us try to demonstrate that the belief in inherent injustice is deeply rooted and well-established not only in the legal sphere but also in Western thought itself.
“Life is Unjust!” Says Thomas Macho
Every reflection on justice inevitably extends to the problem of evil, known as “theodicy.” We question whether the world we live in is just, along with the sources of evil. In a coherent and healthy thought process, this inquiry is not only permissible but necessary—provided it follows a consistent and rational course.
In 1820, the gap between the richest and poorest countries was 3 to 1. By 1950, this disparity had increased to 35 to 1, in 1973 to 44 to 1, and by 1992 to 72 to 1. The divide between the wealthy North and the impoverished South is widening not only in terms of income levels but also in life expectancy. During the Middle Ages and early modern period, only half of those born in a given year reached the age of 21.
When we consider the era in which we are born, the country, the family, the genetics we inherit, and even the circumstances of our deaths, it becomes evident that there is no trace of justice in the life we live.
So, based on all this data, can we say, as the economic philosopher and anarchist Edward Paul Abbey did, “Life is unfair. And it is unfair that life is unfair.”?
For my part, I could answer this question with a “Yes.” But with one condition: I would add, “Do not, under any circumstances, attempt to draw a direct theological conclusion from this!” I would emphasize that when I say “Life is unfair,” it should never be interpreted as “The Creator is unjust!”
The German thinker Thomas Macho is not as cautious as I am. He openly states, “Life is unjust because birth is unjust; life is unjust because death is unjust.” In a lecture he gave at the Graz Academy in 2010, he later compiled his arguments into a book titled Life is Unjust: Let Us Preserve Restlessness (Hayat Adaletsiz: Sükûnetsizliği Koruyalım, Açılım Kitap).
Macho examines injustice in the context of Descartes and Pascal, who lived in the same period. He attributes Descartes’ skepticism to the death of his five-year-old daughter, born from his highly criticized relationship with his maid. As for Pascal, he links his mysticism to his lifelong illness, which became fatal at an early age.
“Pascal knew that the contradiction between death and justice could never be resolved and that the question of theodicy does not lead one to an answer but rather to an abyss.”
For this reason, he believed not in the philosophers but in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—an infinitely incomprehensible God—whom he regarded as just. By asserting that the heart is not the opposite of reason and intelligence but rather the center of faith and love, he transformed Christian thought and laid the foundations of modernity. His influence extended across Western philosophy, from Baudelaire to Nietzsche, Sartre to Camus, and Bergson to Marx.
According to Macho, monotheism came at the cost of legitimizing injustices. “The question of theodicy—the challenge of justifying God’s legitimacy in the face of absence, suffering, and premature death in the world He created—had to be resolved by presupposing that the one and only God could not be evil or unjust.”
Macho believed that apocalyptic eschatology was one of the solutions found. “Christianity began with the expectation of Judgment Day, that is, the end of the world,” and although interpretations have changed, it has always remained an apocalyptic religion. On the Day of Judgment, when the great court is established, those who suffered injustice in this world will receive their due, and the followers of the suffering Jesus will emerge victorious. The Bible’s advice to Christians in the face of injustices was simply to wait for the Last Judgment without passing judgment themselves.
Macho’s argument, despite its convoluted nature, does contain valid points. However, his characterization of monotheism as exclusive to Judeo-Christianity while ignoring Islam is not an excusable oversight. He merely emphasizes the kinship of Pascal’s notion of transcendent knowledge without acknowledging Suhrawardi’s Islamic philosophy.
Christian theology undoubtedly bears much responsibility for the injustices the world has faced. However, for quite some time now, Christianity has not been the dominant faith in the West. People in the West no longer console themselves with the Christian belief in Judgment Day when faced with injustice. Instead, they are captivated by other consumer-driven mythologies that overwhelm and distract them from reality, causing them to turn away from the truth.
Macho, for some reason, does not mention any of this. He is also unaware of Islam, which is both monotheistic and commands its followers to establish justice on earth as their primary duty. Had he been aware, he would have looked at the Qur’an—a scripture that upholds belief in both God and the Day of Judgment while constantly calling for justice—and realized that his claims about monotheistic faith were baseless. Then, he would have remained silent.
It is possible to witness the injustices in the world and cry out, “Is this your justice, world?” while persistently striving for the establishment of justice and a fairer world. However, this requires a firm perspective—one that does not conclude, “Do not strive for justice; it is futile!” or “Do not seek refuge in God in the face of life’s injustices!” by merely citing examples of wrongdoing.