What is Justice?

[houseofcantor]

Something can be legal without being "just."

Get your writer out, Lawgiver.

[Perhaps]

Something can be legal without being "just."

So the definition of justice doesn't determine the 'justness' of a law? If it doesn't, then what does determine if something is 'just'?

---

Justice is an identity and thus dual-state. One Justice is served, one Justice gets served; it may not be possible to reconcile the two. As a servant of Justice I am the law, which is love; how the law is expressed becomes Justice.

See the problem?

I like this, especially:

how the law is expressed becomes justice

Does this counteract Min's comment?

[Minimalist]

So the definition of justice doesn't determine the 'justness' of a law? If it doesn't, then what does determine if something is 'just'?

In 1789 this was written into the US Constitution:

Art. 1 Sec. 2 Para 3

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

It was not only the law - it was the highest law of the land - that blacks counted as 3/5 of a person.

It took 90 years and a civil war to get rid of an unjust law.

[houseofcantor]

Does this counteract Min's comment?

Note the duality of Letter/Spirit of Law. The spirit of the lawgiver seems to have always been morality; what is lacking from traditional knowledge of morality is the fact that it is individual. I keep thinking twelve thousand years is the age of civilization, which is a thing of writing, of spirit, of law.

All the people who ever lived, me and you, the book of life, we 2. Point object truths between which can only be a line, what is true. What is true can only be expressed in language, but the words are always changing, and we are always drawing more lines, trying to define, which can only confine.

So how about I catch you driving and yapping on the phone, I kill you.

There's a good, moral law. So a cop pulls over a girl in a Porche doing a buck twelve and blows her away, only to find out she was a doctor assisting an intern in surgery over the phone. Oops. Sorry, ma'am. Lemme stuff them brains back in yer head, you'll be right as rain...

And those are the days of our lives. Law, to statute, to a cornucopia of precedent leaving the cop on the beat to rely on profiling... to statute, to precedent... yikes! Jane! Stop this crazy thing!

[Perhaps]

It was not only the law - it was the highest law of the land - that blacks counted as 3/5 of a person.

It took 90 years and a civil war to get rid of an unjust law.

I quite agree that the law was unjust. But was it just to anyone? Perhaps those who devised it? Is justice determined by the collective or is it individual?

Note the duality of Letter/Spirit of Law. The spirit of the lawgiver seems to have always been morality; what is lacking from traditional knowledge of morality is the fact that it is individual. I keep thinking twelve thousand years is the age of civilization, which is a thing of writing, of spirit, of law.

All the people who ever lived, me and you, the book of life, we 2. Point object truths between which can only be a line, what is true. What is true can only be expressed in language, but the words are always changing, and we are always drawing more lines, trying to define, which can only confine.

So then, justice is individual? I enjoy your illustration of subjective ideals and the ever changing aspect of language.

---

What becomes of justice if it is found to be subjective and individual? Does it lose its value in determining right from wrong?
What becomes of justice if it is found to be objective and collective? Is it applicable to the individual, or do we run the risk of HoC's example?

[houseofcantor]

Justice is the individual ideal of the collective. I am many identities. Atheist/anarchist/moral/journeyman prophet... it is that last to leads to this, here, posting. A point of intersection when shit most definitely went non-local.

Justicar of the asari, Blue Suns mercenary; dreaming of technocratic anarchy and Justice for All...

[reverendjeremiah]

Would it be possible to incorporate all of them into a single demonstrative definition of justice?

No, I dont think so. Lets go over all of the sub definitions:

just = someones opinion

righteousness = someones opinion

equitableness = measureable results depending on what we are trying to equate

moral rightness = someones opinion

uphold the justice of a cause = someones opinion legislated

rightfulness or lawfulness = opinions that are legislated

as of a claim or title = opinions

the moral principle determining just conduct. = someones opinion

conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment. = opinions that are legislated

the administering of deserved punishment or reward. = inforcing someones opinion

====
So who's ideal are we measuring the consept of "justice" against? Surely some will consider the legislation of Christianity as fiting MANY of the definitions of Justice. In reality the vast majority of the idea of justice is merely based on the ideal it is applied to.

The only thing measurable in reality is "equitable". Economic justice fits together well as long as everyone makes the same amount in the economy. In times of hardship, rationing food equally to all can be a measurable form of justice. Somepeople think that they are better than others, or have worked harder than others which means they have a greater equal share than others - although this may be stretching the definition a bit, i am willing to allow it to be included.

As far as inforcing morality and such, some of it may be measurable. The number of arrests of homosexuals for the crime of sodomy comes to mind. Hunting down and punishing theives also come to mind...both can be considered moral justice, but only in the eyes of those who consider theives and homosexuals immoral. If someone believes that private property, and infact all property is commonly owned, then they do not consider anyone to be theives if they take what they want and when they want. In fact punishing theives to this person would be an injustice.

same thing with homosexuality. I am not a homosexual, but I find it to be an injustice to punish homosexuals. Others may find it to be a great justice.

In conclusion, I say that justice is merely an opinion. A belief. Something that cannot be proven to exist inherently in the cosmos. An ideal which is heavily influenced by the individuals intent.

In other words, justice is more than likely a figment of the human imagination.

---

Justice is the individual ideal of the collective.

I think this also stretches the concept. Individuality and collective diametrically oppose each other.

Perhaps if you could find another less confusing way to put your point across.

[Minimalist]

But was it just to anyone? Perhaps those who devised it?

In the real world, my friend, laws are written to serve the interests of the people who propose them.

People love to talk about the "founding fathers" with a kind of reverence reserved for things they do not understand. The founding fathers (note that there were no mothers!) had a distinct fear of democracy. The document they produced was designed to make sure that THEY remained the ruling class.


I'm afraid that "justice" is an abstraction. "Law" is about power.

[Perhaps]

So who's ideal are we measuring the consept of "justice" against? Surely some will consider the legislation of Christianity as fiting MANY of the definitions of Justice. In reality the vast majority of the idea of justice is merely based on the ideal it is applied to.

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?

The only thing measurable in reality is "equitable". Economic justice fits together well as long as everyone makes the same amount in the economy. In times of hardship, rationing food equally to all can be a measurable form of justice. Somepeople think that they are better than others, or have worked harder than others which means they have a greater equal share than others - although this may be stretching the definition a bit, i am willing to allow it to be included.

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

As far as inforcing morality and such, some of it may be measurable. The number of arrests of homosexuals for the crime of sodomy comes to mind. Hunting down and punishing theives also come to mind...both can be considered moral justice, but only in the eyes of those who consider theives and homosexuals immoral. If someone believes that private property, and infact all property is commonly owned, then they do not consider anyone to be theives if they take what they want and when they want. In fact punishing theives to this person would be an injustice.

same thing with homosexuality. I am not a homosexual, but I find it to be an injustice to punish homosexuals. Others may find it to be a great justice.

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?

In conclusion, I say that justice is merely an opinion. A belief. Something that cannot be proven to exist inherently in the cosmos. An ideal which is heavily influenced by the individuals intent. In other words, justice is more than likely a figment of the human imagination.

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?

Justice is the individual ideal of the collective.

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?

In the real world, my friend, laws are written to serve the interests of the people who propose them.

People love to talk about the "founding fathers" with a kind of reverence reserved for things they do not understand. The founding fathers (note that there were no mothers!) had a distinct fear of democracy. The document they produced was designed to make sure that THEY remained the ruling class.


I'm afraid that "justice" is an abstraction. "Law" is about power.

Is justice merely a word used to 'allow' law to be enforced? Is there no 'true' justice, and it is simply used as a social control device, created by men to control men? This is a very interesting point you've brought up - strikingly similar to religion in the aspect of social control.

However, I personally have no problem with personal religion. Ideas which give the person holding them a sense of individual hope and the 'warm fuzzy feelings' while helping them strive to be a better person. When people implement it as a social control is where I get upset. Could the same be true of justice? Something that is individually held to help the person strive to be better, while giving them hope - instead of something used to control the masses? Just some thoughts off the top of my head.

[houseofcantor]

In conclusion, I say that justice is merely an opinion. A belief. Something that cannot be proven to exist inherently in the cosmos. An ideal which is heavily influenced by the individuals intent.

The individual ideal of the collective. Batman? Justice League? What if you could prove it using science?

If I gotta do it, I'm gonna be a justicar of the asari. Picture this 43-year old dude dressed up as a blue skinned alien female with tentacles for hair in the skin-tight latex walking into the Institute for Advanced Studies... Well, maybe not the first part...

But I radiate love, it is seen as morality, and it should be verifiable as electromagnetic communication. Thing is, it would take a boatload of time for science to move from this one mutation to mainstream acceptance; and I'm not thinking we got the time.