The Quest for Ultimate Justice: Divine Law or Human Construct?

The question of ultimate justice passionately fuels debates at the intersection of faith, reason, and tradition. On one hand, there is the belief that justice is based on a divine foundation—a fixed and absolute law that stands above human decree. Thinkers such as John Cook and John Owen argue that it is God’s law that provides the fundamental principles necessary for the existence of society, and that higher moral norms grant certain groups the right to criticize or redefine traditional laws. This perspective inspires with its permanence and strength, as it is anchored by recognized authorities capable of guiding society toward true justice.

Nevertheless, there is another side to the debate. Critics of traditional concepts of ultimate justice point out that when the human mind attempts to interpret natural law, it inevitably distorts its original intent. Instead of arriving at one single, absolute principle of justice, we get a set of norms shaped under the influence of circumstances, customs, and collective opinion. This view of justice—where the ebb and flow of fashionable trends can be just as powerful as logic and divine revelation—leads us to question the existence of a single, ultimate measure.

In the end, the question of whether ultimate justice exists as an indisputable divine law or as a product of human interpretation remains open. Each approach has its own persuasiveness and reflects a profound dilemma between belief in the absolute and recognition of the variability of human reason. It is within this contradiction that a dynamic discussion is born, one that can inspire the search for answers and a rethinking of the very notion of justice.

Does ultimate justice exist, and what arguments can confirm or refute its existence?

The answer to the question of the existence of ultimate justice is complex and depends on which source of authority is accepted as the basis of justice. On one hand, there are arguments in favor of ultimate justice truly existing as a fundamental law that transcends earthly legislation; on the other, there are arguments suggesting that the concept of justice is subject to human distortion.

Some authors assert that justice has an ultimate basis, deriving directly from God’s law. For instance, John Cook advances the position that God’s law is a “holy and just” force that carries the fundamental principles without which human society cannot exist:
“To be just ... the Holy and just law of God is the fundamental law without which human society cannot be preserved; it stands above ordinary law. ‘The principle that a king cannot act wrongly contradicts reason and therefore the law; even if proclaimed by a thousand judges, it will not make it a law’” (source: link ).

A similar opinion is shared by John Owen, who contends that the higher principles of justice are embedded in God’s plan and manifest themselves through the election and special responsibilities of certain groups, giving them the moral right to challenge traditional laws (source: link ).

On the other hand, there are arguments pointing to the difficulties in establishing a single, unchanging principle of ultimate justice. Critics of natural law emphasize that although such a law exists, the human mind has distorted it beyond recognition in the process of interpretation:
“Natural law, without doubt, exists, but our delightfully distorted and utterly perverted mind has completely warped it...” (source: link ).

Another aspect of the debate is that the concept of justice is often determined by a generally accepted custom and collective consensus rather than by strict logical or divine measures. One commentator notes that
“one person sees the essence of justice in the authority of the lawgiver, another—in the needs of the monarch, and yet another—in a generally accepted custom; the last assertion is the most convincing, for if one follows reason alone, then no justice in the world would remain unchangeably just...” (source: link ).
This suggests that even commonly accepted standards of justice can be variable and dependent on context and circumstance.

Thus, the existence of ultimate justice can be affirmed if one regards the supreme measure as the divine law, as argued by John Cook and John Owen (source: link ). At the same time, proponents of the idea that natural law and the rational comprehension of justice are inevitably subject to distortion by the human mind cast doubt on the possibility of establishing an objective, ultimate principle (source: link ).

In summary, the question of whether ultimate justice exists remains unresolved, as the arguments of its supporters rely on the idea of divine law as a primary foundation, while critics point to the challenges and contradictions inherent in human interpretation even of those norms originally intended to be supreme.

Supporting citation(s):
"To be just to Aristotle ... ‘The principle that a king cannot act wrongly contradicts reason and therefore the law; even if proclaimed by a thousand judges, it will not make it a law’" (source: link ).

"Natural law, without doubt, exists, but our delightfully distorted and utterly perverted mind has completely warped it..." (source: link ).