What is Justice?

[reverendjeremiah]

So, from this, can we establish that justice is merely a social control device? If the term is related to a piece of legislature, can we assuredly say that it is merely doing so to create an emotional appeal to said legislature?

Who knows. The variables are so vast it is difficult for me to completely explain my opinion on it. Without any inherent measuring stone of the cosmos to measure it against, we cannot ever know. Of course, I am basing this from my philosophy of Absurdism which suggests meaning in the universe can never be known, at least from the individuals point of view. Universal justice would suggest an inherent meaning in the universe that it was measured against. There is no inherent meaning to judge justice from. Therefore Justice is only measured from the opinions of the individual. Therefore the answer would be "I dont know" or "Its a free-for-all... it can be used for many different and even contradictory things"

I always enjoy seeing the deeply held opinions of others. They can often reveal much about the individual's character and thought process. That being said, your statement about ideologies being attached to a supreme ideology is an interesting one. From this, can we say that societies need a certain set of ideologies (although this set may change) to be established? The question then becomes, is justice an ideology which is needed?

I call it "stackable philosophies". Im sure there is a more "official" description for it somewhere, but I am unaware of it. My base "supreme ideology" is absurdism. Then i stack materialism on it. then I stack "civil libertarianism" on it, then i stack "anti-capitalist" on it...so on, so on. Just calling yourself a "Pantheist" is not enough. Are you idealistic or materialistic for your supreme philosophy? so on, and so on...

now, wether justice is needed or not does not matter. the concept exists in the imaginations of those who hold it. the concept is also completely different from individual to individual, even if they greatly agree in groups, there is always some subtle nuance that one person in a group disagrees with some other. Perhaps instead of asking "is it needed", the question should instead be "does it even exist?"

I don't want to assume a meaning from this definition, so if you could elaborate a bit in a more general sense it would be appreciated. The example you gave about "tearing the fucking banks down" sounds like a one-sided justice. Is justice always one-sided?

Thats the whole point of what I am trying to say. Unlike many, MANY people who discuss their politics, I will admit that I am not sure. I will admit that it is only my opinion, and I may be wrong. that in fact my opinions may very well cause what others perceive as harm upon them and others. My opinion on that statement I made is this: I think that competition among citizens is not a good idea. We should all be in it together as a team. this guy produces bread. This guy puts the bricks up to make the bakery, I install the electrical and the bread making machines, another guy places the plumbing. We all, in my mind, deserve an equal share of the bread, an equal share of the masonry, an equal share of the plumbing, and equal share of the electricity. We are all in it together. Competition actively pits human against human were there MUST be a loser and a winner, especially with basic things like having a good life, clothing, food, clean water, etc.. These should NEVER be capitalised in my opinion. How can we call ourselves a community on one hand, but on the other hand say "this other citizen is my opponent". Its an obvious hypocrisy. Sure, there is a duality of man, but not everything has to be so malevolently dual, especially if it is cruel to others. I could not stand to turn a hungry or thirsty person away from food or water, where as others think they can capitalize on the sufferings of others.
Meh...sometimes I feel like I am wasting my time giving a shit about anything because everyone is so different about things.

You wouldn't like my answer

..and that stopped you? Shit...spill the beans bro!

I would like to discuss this further, but I feel that it would get off the topic of the OP. From your statements, however, I'm assuming you're a fan of Marxist philosophy? It's interesting that you can pair absurdity with circular motion - almost two ends of the spectrum.

Many things Marx said I agree with. Some things he said i dispise. Marx was all for powerful authoritarian government. I am anti-authoritarian.
Oh yeah...LOL...that "circular motion" thing was just pointing out the 4th dimension of the opinion. Time...Time goes by and all things change. Many of the changes are just going back to old philosophies that have been tried before but are merely given a new cover, a new name, small things added or subtracted from it, etc...etc.... Rarely does something new pop up in the realm of human politics or philosophy. Even Marx suggested that what he was creating "communism" was a new concept that would change the history of mankind with "dialectic materialism" - yet communism and dialectic materialism had been discussed and even used in communities long before he was even born. They just used different names. Epicurus used something very similar to Marxism in his "Garden Society". Dialectic Materialism was made famous in ancient times by Democritus.

Thats what I meant by "in a circular motion". And it can get quite absurd if you pull back and look at it in the big picture. I see a bunch of people, over thousands of years, fighting and squabbling over everything and anything. Some fights worse than others, but fights none the less. THAT is the absurdity to it. There is no inherent government or philosophy. Absurdism is the philosophy that says "all philosophies are merely opinions". LOL, i know, there is a sense of grave humor in Absurdism...which is what attracts me to it the most.

So, true justice cannot be contradictory to its actions? I love the quote, but I'm just trying to get to a fundamental level.

Im not even sure if we can reach a fundamental level with Justice. There are so many variables that the equation of justice would wind up being unable for any human to actually bring a sum about from it. There are no real numbers involved in its formula to figure out the variables related to it.

The same can be said of love to a certain degree.

Perhaps if you brought a bucket of justice over to my house, then we could get to the bottom of it. Until then, Justice seems very much like an opinion to me.