In this document, the author discusses Cicero's work "The Defense of Justice" in which two rhetoricians debate justice. One argues in favor of injustice by proposing a scenario where a just man is treated as a criminal while an unjust man is praised. The author disagrees, arguing they would choose justice even if it led to negative consequences. The author also argues that countries like North Korea, led by the unjust Kim Jong Un, are dysfunctional while justice is needed for a democracy to function properly and ensure equal treatment. In conclusion, the author maintains there is no justice in being unjust and that pursuing justice is important despite immediate rewards for unjust behavior.

1. One 1
Another Good One
Dr. Kim Palmore
EWRT 2
28 February 2014
A Pursuit of Justice
In The Defense of Injustice, Cicero chooses two skillful rhetoricians, Laelius and
Philus, to debate on justice. Laelius invites Philus to argue in favor of injustice, and Philus
rises up to the challenge. Philus is seen as an honest and just man, and in his hands the
argument in favor of injustice has great potential to also reveal precious details about justice
and its importance to the society (120). In defense of his argument about injustice, Philus
gives us a scenario of two men; one “a paragon of virtue, fairness and honesty,” (128) the
other “an outrageous ruffian” (128). Philus proposes a situation that is quite backwards; the
good man is seen as “an evil, villainous criminal,” (128) whereas the bad man is considered
to be “a model of honourable propriety” (128). Philus then goes on to ask us, who we would
rather be; a just man who gets treated like dirt, or an unjust man who is showered in glory. In
his opinion, there is no doubt one would rather be “an unjust master than a just slave” (128). I
must disagree with Philus, as I would rather take the high road of justice than live a life of
moral turpitude. Therefore, in the name of humanity and for the greater good of our society,
being a good person would be an obvious choice for me even if it was accompanied by
negative consequences.
Justice, or “fairness” and “righteousness”, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is what
one should aim for, as it is what keeps our society running smoothly on every level. Justice
cannot happen if the rights of others are being violated because of one man’s selfish wants for
personal success. The ideal form of government, a democracy, is built on justice and equality,
and one cannot exist without the other. The only way a government can function properly is

2. One 2
when it is being led by a just leader, and all of its people are receiving equal and fair
treatment. Unfortunately, there are many countries in our world today that are completely
dysfunctional because of an unjust leader. One of the most prominent examples of such
countries is North Korea. According to The Huffington Post, North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong
Un, who is known for being vicious and unjust, enjoys the life of the rich while his people are
suffering from food shortages. Clearly, Philus’ assumption that “every kind of public office
and military command [would be] showered upon [the bad man], as well as riches and wealth
from every quarter” has come true, but at the same time Kim Jong Un’s actions have left him
with a mess of a country, not to mention the people who secretly despise him, but most of
who are too afraid to speak out.
My choice of being a good person rather than a bad one is the only right choice in
terms of justice and my own conscience. I see no glory in success that is achieved by
trampling on the rights of others. I would not be able to enjoy anything I have if it had all
been achieved by the means of foul play. Being the bad man would mean giving up on my
sense of humanity and my morals, which call for justice for all. The virtue of choosing the
high road is clearly the right choice because in that case fewer innocent people would have to
suffer because of one man’s willingness to do so. In the case that one should choose to be the
bad man, more people would suffer as the result of the actions of one man.
In conclusion, there is no justice in being a bad man, which makes it an unviable
option for me. One should always strive towards humanity, and unjust behavior does not give
one the chance to do so. It is, however, clever of Philus to argue that most people would
rather be unjust and treated well than be just and treated badly. In his argument, he is
appealing to the selfish nature of human beings, which is a powerful tool. I can see how this
kind of argument may get some defenders of justice on his side because most humans are,
indeed, somewhat selfish by nature. However, those of us who can look beyond immediate

3. One 3
gratification will understand that no matter what the prize, it is not worth sacrificing one’s
pursuit of justice. There is one important reason for this; eventually, the evil will be punished,
and the good will be rewarded.

4. One 4
Works Cited
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. “The Defense of Justice.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for
College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th
ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006.
119-129. Print.
“Justice.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. New ed. 2004. Print.
Nelson, Sara C. “North Korea Leader Kim Jong Un Enjoys ‘Seven-Star’ Luxury Lifestyle,
Dennis Rodman Reveals.” The Huffington Post UK. 18 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Feb.
2014.