The criterion of justice is the quantity of resistance and support to certain actions. Actions that are less resisted and more supported are justice.

Many lives may be sacrificed to set up a government, which is possible to be supported by public, because a strong government is able to create and maintain a large system of society. Large system is better in many ways than a small one, including building irrigation works, resisting invasions, unifying money and words. The government, set up on the pool of blood, is able to maximize public interest. Consequently, might is right in this case, as it is instrument to protect public interest. The criterion of right and wrong is the benefit of the strong, namely, the governor. In English, Justum is a form of jussum,²⁵ namely order. The dictatorship and the law of jungle were all ever helpful to human progress, and were justice to a certain degree.

It is always said that the justice will eventually conquer the evil, while slavery system and autarchy were practise for thousands of years. In fact, justice is the winner itself, only that justice contains more and more benefits of public when society develops. The slavery system and autarchy were just in certain period, unless it was possible to build a system which was more efficient to promote the interest of the public, and therefore most people did not support these old systems any longer.

Ⅴ. Justice Criterion on Different Relations

of Benefits

Bentham, Plato and some others supposed that the criterion of justice is the maximum of benefit of the most people. This is almost right, but not precise.

Benefits of people have different relations, which may be divided into two kinds: (a) conflict, one rises as the other fall (up-down); (b) not conflict, one rise with the other rise or remain fixed (up-up). They often transform toward each other when conditions change. What is more, there are two kinds of up-down: (a) the total benefit is not able to rise or avoid to fall; (b) the total benefit is able to rise or avoid to fall.

Both choices on benefit of the subject and others may be justice, when the total of benefit is not able to rise or avoid to fall. For example, there is only one champion and there is always someone to be victim.

Theorem: Both choices on benefit between the subject and others may be justice when benefits conflict and the total benefit is not able to rise or avoid to fall.

This conclusion accords the principle of utility and equality. On the other hand, when the total of benefit is able to rise or avoid to fall with one side sacrificed, the maximization of the total benefit is the justice.

Theorem: The maximization of benefit is justice when benefits conflict and the total benefit is able to rise or avoid to fall.

People are always counting the total of benefit though it is difficult. For example, Americans felt that the benefit of the Nation had been over-valuated after the Vietnam War, and were not willing to sacrifice individual for the benefit of the Nation any longer. After “9.11”, however, Americans realized the importance of the National benefit again and were willing to pay more tax for the national security. The different opinions of the valuation cause the quarrel in the Congress every year about the budget.