What is Justice?

[Minimalist]

I see what you are trying to do, Perhaps, but I think it is illusory.

Like "beauty" justice is in the eye of the beholder.


Who knows, in 20 years Americans may decide that throwing people out of their homes so that crooked banks can increase their profit margin may be "unjust." I doubt it but stranger things have happened.

[Perhaps]

I see what you are trying to do, Perhaps, but I think it is illusory.

Like "beauty" justice is in the eye of the beholder.

I agree, I think my mentality can get in the way of this answer sometimes. I'm always trying to think of ways to bring together these different opinions of justice to find common ground.

Some days I wonder what the world would be like if everyone simply adhered to their opinions, while others I wonder what it would be like if everyone was essentially the same in their ideologies.

Which one is better? I'm not sure, which is why the question is one I obsess over.

[Minimalist]

Ultimately, beating your head into a wall simply gives you a headache.

[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.

[Perhaps]

I absolutely love this kind of dialogue. Honest, sincere, deep, etc. Thank you, in advance, for such a great conversation.

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"

Perhaps we can delve into a bit of why you adhere to the philosophy of Absurdism? If, from this philosophy, much of your belief stems then I think it's important to understand the initial belief. It dose fascinate me, the little I know of it from the Wiki page, but I'm interested if there's more behind your decision. Concluding from this paragraph, however, we can then say that if there is no inherent meaning in the universe then that supposes that there is no universal justice - for then we lack something to judge justice from? Let's assume this is true, what then happens to the ideal of justice - which need not exist, but only conceptually? Is there an ideal justice, which is irrespective of personal opinion? If we say, 'Maybe, but I don't know' or 'no' - then what happens to this concept held by so many people? Does it lose it's affinity for action and emotional appeal? Is it OK to have it as part of the 'justice system' under which we are all held as equals? And perhaps, a bit of a stretch of a question but oh well, does justice necessitate equality? Do equality and justice share a place in our morality?

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?"

From this brief explanation I think you uncover the human nature of us all - and that is conflict. Not necessarily violent, but mostly subjective conflict. Back to the point of justice however, your take on the question is quite interesting in its regress to a more original question of existence. Can we answer the question 'does justice exist'? I think so, and the answer is that it exists as a conception or a thought. This conception is then made ideal by application of time and human nature. But I think the question is 'What is the ideal justice?'. Perhaps there is no answer, as it is subjective - but doesn't every ideal have an image of perfection in which it resides? Essentially, doesn't every ideal have an objective nature which can be described?

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.

Your humility is refreshing. And i'm consistently amazed at your thoughts and seeming thought process. To identify the human nature of conflict while being able to say that competition is not a good idea is interesting to say the least. I think the beauty of your description of the free market economy and capitalistic society rests in the individualism which comes together to create a community - something it doesn't have to do, but does anyway. Even more interesting is your following statement "Its an obvious hypocrisy." for the reason of your supreme philosophy. Why must it make sense (although I believe it does), if the universe itself doesn't make sense? Simply because it is human or influenced by such? I do agree with your final sentences, however.

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

Well, of course many people will call me a theif. Some may even call for my long term inprisonment and possible execution. Some may even call me a hater of America and even treasonous. They will claim that I would cause a great injustice to the country, the bankers, the paper shufflers, the fucking percentage crunchers and those fucking stock swindlers. "they earned it fair and square and you are suggesting mass theivery".

I argue they fucking played the system, bribed our politicians, stole our welfare and retirement, set the rules and stole as much as they could from honest hard working families and then even went so far as to conspire to pay those hard workers less money for more hours... Returning that wealth to the citizens would be a great justice, and I would celebrate in the streets when that day comes

I would attempt to say that the system was created by the institution of government, which at the time was the people, and was taken advantage of by the most intelligent among us. Once this was accomplished they became utterly rich, and perpetually powerful. Once in power it is very hard to humble oneself to a position of submission - there is also a progress theory which states that people are driven by the fear of falling down and therefore continue upwards at whatever cost. The fact that our government is now bought is a simple result of the system to begin with. We are being run by the greediest and most intelligent people the world has ever seen. You don't get to a position of power without being intelligent - unless you are born into it - which is why I would argue they are starting to fall due to the collective. As for welfare and retirement - also the fault of the system which the intelligent took advantage of. I understand, and am fully aware, that what I say is a representation of my character, but I do not think that if the system was corrupted by regulation there would be such a vast dependence on welfare, and as for retirement - those who labor are never meant to stop, simple as that - the essential flaw of the system itself is the fact of mortality and age. Once they gained power they set the rules to benefit themselves, this is true, but look at any government in history - the same can be said. It all depends on who has the power. If it is the collective, then the collective gets the benefit of the law - if it is the individual then the opposite is true.

In business you cannot view an employee or a potential payment as a person - if you do then you will no succeed. It is unfortunate that some do not succeed, but in a true capitalist system it will be because they chose not to, not where it is today where they were born into it, or bad circumstances, etc. Returning the wealth to the citizens who are not intelligent enough to spend it properly and provide an economy for a society to function in would be a robbery of epic proportions and possibly the most immoral thing one could do. People need to be led, simple as that. I am all for libertarianism in theory, but the fact that intelligence differs just as capability creates two classes, if not more, those who lead and those who follow.

My fix? Create a true capitalist society where the government's largest focus is education - provide equal opportunity for all through the process of education and then you will have truly progressive system which abides by human nature at its most fundamental level. To go against human nature is to remove humanity from being - and I'm not that much of a futurist, or merely that humble.

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.

Once again, it amazes me that you can see the fundamental conflict within human nature and even ascribe to this observation labeling it absurdity, yet you hold the views which you do. But I can see your side of the topic, I once held similar beliefs, which just goes to show the ever fluctuating nature of things. This idea of absolute randomness and absurdity is one I can't quite determine when compared with circularity and order - but I'm working on it none-the-less.

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.

Perhaps we can't, or perhaps the fundamental level is that it is merely an opinion held by many and differs by all. But then what separates justice from any other thought? I've never viewed love and justice in the same philosophy category, or any category for that matter, but it is interesting to think about them as so similar on a fundamental (or lack there of) level. And believe me, if I could get a bucket of it, I would definitely not care about it as much as I do. The quantitative things in life are boring and obsolete, I'm much more fascinated with that witch cannot be sensed or easily thought about.

[reverendjeremiah]

I absolutely love this kind of dialogue. Honest, sincere, deep, etc. Thank you, in advance, for such a great conversation.

As long as I've got the time, Ill chat all day about anything and everything.

Perhaps we can delve into a bit of why you adhere to the philosophy of Absurdism? If, from this philosophy, much of your belief stems then I think it's important to understand the initial belief. It dose fascinate me, the little I know of it from the Wiki page, but I'm interested if there's more behind your decision. Concluding from this paragraph, however, we can then say that if there is no inherent meaning in the universe then that supposes that there is no universal justice - for then we lack something to judge justice from? Let's assume this is true, what then happens to the ideal of justice - which need not exist, but only conceptually? Is there an ideal justice, which is irrespective of personal opinion? If we say, 'Maybe, but I don't know' or 'no' - then what happens to this concept held by so many people? Does it lose it's affinity for action and emotional appeal? Is it OK to have it as part of the 'justice system' under which we are all held as equals? And perhaps, a bit of a stretch of a question but oh well, does justice necessitate equality? Do equality and justice share a place in our morality?

The philosophy itself is pretty simple. So simple that some people mistake its meaning, or read too much into it. Sure, it is a philosophy, but it didnt catch on big popular until the artists and performers of the early 20th century picked up on it. Most Absurdist dont call themselves absurdists. Most dispise titles. The modern ones (neo-absurdists) have included anti-genre and Chaos/randomness into the philosophy, which I agree belongs in the philosophy.

The absurdist was typically an anti-hero. Someone who questions every sense and situation, but no matter how much they searched or how deep they searched they could find no meaning in life...which eventually led to meaningless actions and events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdist_fiction

Absurdism is what helped bring about Dadaism as well, which questioned what art really was. The painting "The Treachery of Images" explains some of the basic concepts of the absurd.


"This is not a pipe"

I wish justice could be measured by basic needs. Clean water for all could be a very basic justice. The only problem is not everyone will agree with it for many reasons...racism...profit making..."they are my enemy!"...etc...

From this brief explanation I think you uncover the human nature of us all - and that is conflict. Not necessarily violent, but mostly subjective conflict. Back to the point of justice however, your take on the question is quite interesting in its regress to a more original question of existence. Can we answer the question 'does justice exist'? I think so, and the answer is that it exists as a conception or a thought. This conception is then made ideal by application of time and human nature. But I think the question is 'What is the ideal justice?'. Perhaps there is no answer, as it is subjective - but doesn't every ideal have an image of perfection in which it resides? Essentially, doesn't every ideal have an objective nature which can be described?

Well of course thoughts exist. Thoughts are real in the sense that they DO happen in your mind. If I dream I am riding a unicorn then that dream really happened and I experienced it. This to me is the cause of the duality of humanity. The brain is unable to be aware of its own functioning. Sure, you know you are thinking, but you dont realize that you are merely a brain. It is isolated in flesh and bone yet it has sensors to detect everything outside of it. You can choose to trust that sense or not. even if you do 100% trust your senses, it does not mean that what you sense is factual.

Ever had a dream where you thought you woke up? Then walked around in the dream land until you thought you woke up again, etc...etc..etc... The senses can be fooled, thus causing a duality of man in many ways. We are on the inside looking out and we are all lonely.

Perhaps you are stuck on Plato's theory of forms.

Your humility is refreshing. And i'm consistently amazed at your thoughts and seeming thought process. To identify the human nature of conflict while being able to say that competition is not a good idea is interesting to say the least.

It is the duality of man. All of us have inner contradictions. To deny such would be philosophical suicide. We MUST accept that there is a point where love and hate meld together. Thus the absurd. Thus the saying "The absurd must be embraced and rebeled against at the same time."

My fix? Create a true capitalist society where the government's largest focus is education - provide equal opportunity for all through the process of education and then you will have truly progressive system which abides by human nature at its most fundamental level. To go against human nature is to remove humanity from being - and I'm not that much of a futurist, or merely that humble.

Hmm...me and you might talk more about politics soon...

[Perhaps]

The philosophy itself is pretty simple. So simple that some people mistake its meaning, or read too much into it. Sure, it is a philosophy, but it didnt catch on big popular until the artists and performers of the early 20th century picked up on it. Most Absurdist dont call themselves absurdists. Most dispise titles. The modern ones (neo-absurdists) have included anti-genre and Chaos/randomness into the philosophy, which I agree belongs in the philosophy.

The absurdist was typically an anti-hero. Someone who questions every sense and situation, but no matter how much they searched or how deep they searched they could find no meaning in life...which eventually led to meaningless actions and events.

Absurdism is what helped bring about Dadaism as well, which questioned what art really was. The painting "The Treachery of Images" explains some of the basic concepts of the absurd.

I wish justice could be measured by basic needs. Clean water for all could be a very basic justice. The only problem is not everyone will agree with it for many reasons...racism...profit making..."they are my enemy!"...etc...

Perhaps the absurdist answers their question too quickly. Perhaps they found no meaning, but does that necessitate that no meaning is there? Personally I try to appreciate questions which have no answer - although I am all to quick to fill them with subjective responses. Justice based on basic needs is interesting. Would justice only pertain to the basic needs, and who establishes basic needs?

Well of course thoughts exist. Thoughts are real in the sense that they DO happen in your mind. If I dream I am riding a unicorn then that dream really happened and I experienced it. This to me is the cause of the duality of humanity. The brain is unable to be aware of its own functioning. Sure, you know you are thinking, but you dont realize that you are merely a brain. It is isolated in flesh and bone yet it has sensors to detect everything outside of it. You can choose to trust that sense or not. even if you do 100% trust your senses, it does not mean that what you sense is factual.

Ever had a dream where you thought you woke up? Then walked around in the dream land until you thought you woke up again, etc...etc..etc... The senses can be fooled, thus causing a duality of man in many ways. We are on the inside looking out and we are all lonely.

Perhaps you are stuck on Plato's theory of forms.

Does this then mean that justice is merely a thought which has no real existence outside of the consciousness which creates it? I do find much philosophical knowledge within Plato's theory of forms, but I try to be open minded.

It is the duality of man. All of us have inner contradictions. To deny such would be philosophical suicide. We MUST accept that there is a point where love and hate meld together. Thus the absurd. Thus the saying "The absurd must be embraced and rebeled against at the same time."

Dualism fascinates me, but so does monism. Once again, I try to embrace multiple perspectives while comparing their validity.

Hmm...me and you might talk more about politics soon...

Most certainly my friend. I love healthy debate, especially when the cause is good and the end goal is ideal.

---

I'm afraid, as I read over what has become of our conversation, we have missed the question entirely while coming to an understanding of subjective consciousness. Perhaps we could attempt to regain control of the direction of conversation, if you are still interested in the topic at hand.

The initial question: what is justice? has been hidden under an overarching question of: does justice exist?
To continue the conversation I'd be happy to assume that justice does exist - regardless of its objective or subjective nature. From here, is it possible to establish what the ideal justice would look like? As peers collaborating on a subject of interest - taking in each other's points of view and melding them to create an ideal?

I'll attempt to offer a very general definition of my ideal justice.
Justice - Equal application of consequence

I'd be interested in hearing what you would have to add or subtract from this, as well as your own definition of ideal justice.

[reverendjeremiah]

Perhaps the absurdist answers their question too quickly. Perhaps they found no meaning, but does that necessitate that no meaning is there? Personally I try to appreciate questions which have no answer - although I am all to quick to fill them with subjective responses. Justice based on basic needs is interesting. Would justice only pertain to the basic needs, and who establishes basic needs?

They are aware of this, and that is why they continue to search for universal meaning even in the midst of absurdity. That is why I say there is a duality to humanity. This is not to be confussed with Dualism, which is a completely different philosophy. Absurdists will be the first to say they may be wrong with the absurdist philosophy. this is in stark contrast with those who cling to other philosophies who "know" their philosophy is correct. The absurdist hero of 1984, when being tortured near the end of the book, claims that Big brother must be wrong. He is asked by big brother how can that be true with no universal meaning (which orwell simplifies as "god"). The hero admits that he doesnt believe in god, but even then hopes that some sort of "human spirit" could break the grasp of Big Brother. big Brother claims that by controlling the opinion and memory of the people, they control reality. That humanity is "imagine a boot continually stomping a face".

Does this then mean that justice is merely a thought which has no real existence outside of the consciousness which creates it? I do find much philosophical knowledge within Plato's theory of forms, but I try to be open minded.

In my opinion yes. Justice is merely an opinion. One persons idea of "justice" is another persons opinion of "tyranny".

Theory of forms in this situation suggests that a "perfect form" of justice must exist, since we are able to think of it. If a perfect form of "Justice" existed, then it would be obvious. Obvious like "this solid wall is solid" obvious. But it is not. Ive discussed this with my history professor uncle who is agnostic, yet holds strongly to Plato. He still holds to the perfection of forms. I tell him things change over time, and the only way a perfection of forms could ever truly exist is if all time stopped. even then many things considered a perfect form, such as Justice, would still not exist.

Dualism fascinates me, but so does monism. Once again, I try to embrace multiple perspectives while comparing their validity.

Shit, I would argue that dualism and monism exists at the same time - or at least there is no way we could be sure that either is correct. We would be blinded by intent. ..but that is for another discussion.

I'm afraid, as I read over what has become of our conversation, we have missed the question entirely while coming to an understanding of subjective consciousness. Perhaps we could attempt to regain control of the direction of conversation, if you are still interested in the topic at hand.

Of course we went off track most of the times. We are humans. humans are blinded by their intent...they are blinded by their wants and needs. Im always interested.

The initial question: what is justice? has been hidden under an overarching question of: does justice exist?

Well, to be honest, if we have no proof that Justice exists outside of human opinion then all we will be doing is discussing our opinions on the matter.

Im with min, we may as well beat our heads on the table.

To continue the conversation I'd be happy to assume that justice does exist - regardless of its objective or subjective nature. From here, is it possible to establish what the ideal justice would look like? As peers collaborating on a subject of interest - taking in each other's points of view and melding them to create an ideal?

I dont think it would fix the problem.

I'll attempt to offer a very general definition of my ideal justice.
Justice - Equal application of consequence

I would then argue that you have decided to equate "justice" with "consistency". Slavery of black people would then be just as long as all blacks are slaves.

I'd be interested in hearing what you would have to add or subtract from this, as well as your own definition of ideal justice.

I dont know..I honestly do not know. Anything I would say on the subject would merely be an opinion, and not concrete.

Justice is an equity and consistency in upholding a value. "Do as I say, not as I do" would be the exact opposite of this definition.

..but, like I said before, I would strongly argue that it is opinion and not fact.

[Welsh cake]

What is justice?

Revenge.

[amkerman]

Perhaps: this is what I believe justice is.

This is what I believe is just: Doing what is right.
This is what I belive justice is: Forgiving yourself and others when we don't.