What is Justice?

[Perhaps]

Very interesting. Perhaps the concept of justice should be held against the ideals of the collective, or perhaps against the ideals of each individual. I do agree, however, that justice is based on the ideal it is applied to - the question is which one should it be applied to?

I dont know. My philosophy of Absurdism suggests that when humans are involved in anything, especially matters such as this, that it is a free-for-all. In other words, anything can go. Why? Because there is no inherent meaning in the universe as far as its relationship with humanity. We are humans looking for traits of humanity in an inhuman cosmos. Those who feel that justice should fit the ideals of the collective tend to be socialist types. I tend to lean a bit i that direction, but I will admit that it is merely an ideal. a belief of mine that has no concrete evidence for its universal support at all. Others lean in the direction of Individualism, and they sometimes go for capitalistic type ideologies. I too lean in favor of individualism, yet dispise the concept of capitalism. In that sense I am conflicted. In the end, it is merely my opinion and how I have my opinion acted upon.

Quite interesting... If justice is merely an opinion then by what authority is it enacted upon the masses? In Plato's work, Thrasymachus gives an answer to this:

Listen, then, he said; I proclaim that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger.

Plato, however, goes on, in the form of the character Socrates, to dismiss this claim entirely.

But are the rulers of States absolutely infallible, or are they sometimes liable to err?

Then in making their laws they may sometimes make them rightly, and sometimes not?...When they make them rightly, they make them agreeably to their interest; when they are mistaken, contrary to their interest, you admit that?

And the laws which they make must be obeyed by their subjects - and that is what you call justice?

Then justice, according to your argument, is not only obedience to the interest of the stronger, but the reverse?

Have we not admitted that the rulers may be mistaken about their own interest in what they command, and also that to obey them is justice?

Then you must also have acknowledged justice not to by for the interest of the stronger, when the rulers unintentionally command things to be done which are to their own injury. For if, as you say, justice is the obedience which the subject renders to their commands, in that case, O wisest of men, is there any escape from the conclusion that the weaker are commanded to do, not what is for the interest, but what is for the injury of the stronger?

So what are we left with? A simple opinion with no authority to be given? Perhaps.

Does justice serve the cause of equality or the cause of individuality?

Can you have equality AND individuality? I dont know. I can see justice as an emotional button. When people invoke "justice", it is meant to invoke many emotions. The problem is that some people see justice differently than other people.

Justice is not a word I like to use. Its way too open to interpretation.

Perhaps one is able to view this "emotional button" as a social control - pressed by those who want to sway the collective towards a certain ideal? I find that I also am rare to use the word justice for the same reason, but it is also for that reason that I am trying to delve into what it actually means to be 'just' or invoke justice.

Is the ultimate goal of an ideal society equality for all of its members, or freedom for each individual to do as they please? Does individual freedom bring about equality in a sense? Does equality bring about individual freedom? Should justice have a role in developing a society towards its final goal?

Good question, but i need to know what an ideal society is before I can answer it. Im an anarchist, and even then I still have great doubts about wether I really think it is a good idea or not. Every single political view I have held have given me great doubts about its abilities. the same can be said of those political views I disagree with. I might be wrong, and I might be disagreeing with something that might actually be an Ideal system.

Personally I feel that there is no such thing as an ideal society, which is why i currently hold to left wing anarchism. Its just enough community to hold everyone together, but allows individuality for others to make their own bad decisions like I do..LOL.

Perhaps the ideal society is what is made from the ideals of those who create it. So, let's assume this is true and create our own, ideal society. As an individual who adheres to anarchism - is there justice within said community? Is justice necessary for a society which has no order, complete randomness, complete individuality in terms of opinion?

Must an ideal among the people be established before 'true' justice can be performed? Does justice have a place in a society where all opinions are heard equally, even if they differ?

Thats what religion used to do, and the reason why neitzche proclaimed "God is dead". Our common ideals used to be grouped into religion. now we are a pluralized society with greater scientific knowledge. Do ideals die the more that a society grows materialistic? As far as your justice question, if all opinions are heard equally, it does not mean all opinions are enforced equally. these are good questions and i find it difficult to answer them without utilizing my own personal opinion as a measuring stone to them.

If we step outside of personal opinion, and the Ideal, we would then have to use Logic to determine justice.

Logic is a set of inhuman rules that i would not wish to be governed strictly by.

If one quarter of the human population became inflicted with a dangerous and swiftly contagious disease which we have no known cure for, it would be very logical to eradicate them without mercy on site.

If you are an airforce captain, flying in a jet fighter side by side with a passenger plane that has been hijacked with the intent of crashing it into a major city, it suddenly becomes very logical to shoot that plane down as quickly as possible. The passengers (who are now being included against their will) are ALL innocent victims of not only the hijacker, but now of you shooting your missile at it. Do the victims families have the right to tak you and bring you to justice for killing them? You saved thousands of lives by killing a few dozen. It was a logical transaction, yet you (as the fighter captain) caused a great injustice to the unwilling passengers of that passenger plane. - How can justice be defined in this situation?

My answer: In the opinion of each and every person. everyone will have differing ideas of what justice is in that situation. Many may agree in groups, but even then they dont all agree with each and every single nuance. Some, like myself, will proclaim no justice was served and mark it down as another score for absurdity.

For the record, it doesnt matter wther I like absurdity or not. Personally I usually find absurdity to be frustrating and cruel. Sometimes I find it humorous. I do not hold to absurdism because I love the absurd per se. I hold to the philosophy of absurdism because that is what I see around me wether i want it to be that way or not. Sort of like how I personally dont like the idea of evolution. I find it cruel, malevolent and sickening most of the time. I stand by evolution because it is reality, not because i want it to BE reality.

Perhaps my favorite part of your response, so far. If we utilize logic, as you said "a set of inhuman rules", to determine justice then do we create a 'true' or 'absolute' (objective) justice? Are there two sides of logic? Are emotions apart of a logical trial to determine justice? How does one account for the subjectivity of opinion on such a grand scale while attempting to create a standard for which everyone must adhere?

Some, like myself, will proclaim no justice was served and mark it down as another score for absurdity.

Intriguing! I've never considered the possibility of no justice. This again relates to the opinion and subjective side of justice, but to show that it is possible to perceive that no justice took place is quite interesting. Something I'll have to think about a bit more before I respond fully.

I quite agree in its man made attributes. I view it much the same as order, however, does the fact that it's an opinion derived from the thoughts of man give it the ability to rightly create and enforce laws? Does it simply come down to majority rule, or in some cases tyrannical rule?

"Rightly"? There are no inherent rights. People throughout history have found so many ways to legislate upon the masses. Democracy, Theocracy, monarchy, etc...etc...etc...there is no inherent governing model for humanity. We do have instincts that keep us somewhat civil enough to come together to propagate as a species, but thats about it. And even that is highly questionable in my opinion. So, in the end, I say it is a big free-for-all. Just like Evolution, and just like Absurdism, I dont call it a free-for-all because that is what I want per se. I call it a free-for-all because that is what I see around me. In a free-for-all, there is no inherent justice. There is only opinions.

Perhaps a "free-for-all" is the government for humanity. Does justice have a place in this form of government?

Is justice then compromised? Simply a collection of beliefs held together by the collective's opinion? Is there a 'true' justice or an 'absolute' justice, or does it simply reflect the ideal of the collective? Can there be a definition of justice which allows for each and every person to be free and equal? Does 'free and equal' establish my own opinion of justice, and therefore neglect others who believe it to be something different?

If by justice you mean a "universal, true, absolute justice", then no, it was not compromised. I say that universal justice never existed in the first place. If justice is an opinion, then it depends on wether you think your idea of justice has been compromised or not, given the circumstances of the situation of course. justice would only fit the collective only as long as the individuals that make up the collective hold to those ideals. There is in no way possible than any ideal can be shared by 100% of the collective at any given moment. You will always have doubters, liars, etc.. People say one thing and think another to avoid becoming a social outcast.

this by no means suggests that you should not form your own opinion. As opposed to nihilism, absurdism even suggests that you should form your own values and ideals, but ONLY under the full knowledge that they are merely your opinion, and not universal. To do otherwise would be the equivalent of philosophical suicide. You have given up your intellectual control and your grasp of reality then. You have then said "I knew of the reality of the absurd, but I didnt like it, so therefore I will ignore reality and instead believe that my opinions are actually concrete facts."

That is intellectual suicide.