What is justice?

[Khephra]

What are your thougts on "justice"?

[Selwynn]

1. Umm.... geez.... how are we for time?

That's kind of a huge, mammoth subject, philosophically speaking...

Would you be willing to break it up into some smaller questions?

[JailForBush]

2. Jistice = Accountability, which often has to involve Punishment

This issue is a real sore point with me, because it seems like this entire country is out to lunch. Law and order Republicans want to lock up everyone who uses marijuana or has the wrong colored skin in prison. Liberals, on the other hand, don't want to punish anyone - except children. They don't seem to care when government and school officials openly talking about using high-stakes test to punish children.

Nor are they apparently aware of non-physical forms of suffering. If I say, "I'd like to break that corrupt school board member's leg," I'm booed and jeered as some sort of sociopath - for a THOUGHT CRIME, mind you. But if that same school board member screws teachers out of their careers or life savings or tears them away from the students they love - well, don't bother complaining to any bleeding heart liberals. Start calling the corrupt school official names, and that's who they'll rally behind.

Here are the results:

A woman in Seattle was sentenced to life in prison under our three-strikes-and-you're-out law. She stole a total of less than $1,000 in three separate incidents.

Seattle Schools Superintendent Joseph Olchefske, on the other hand, has stolen literally MILLIONS of dollars from the public over a period of years. He has also presided over all kinds of tyranny, including a teacher's suicide. Not to mention the fact that he's a bald-faced liar who was paid more than any state governor except New York's.

He wasn't held accountable for his last scandal, which contributed to the layoff of hundreds of teachers. Instead, he was allowed to retire early - still collecting his salary - to his ranch, which he probably paid for with students' lunch money.

Just today, I read that the bastard's back in Seattle, working as a consultant, claiming that he's working for kids.

But I've learned my lesson; I won't waste my time trying to find any brain-dead liberals OR right-wing creeps in this town who are interested in holding Olchefske accountable.

[Q]

9. Brain-dead liberals?

- You mock the word 'justice' by bringing your prejudices to the debate. You label people according to your perceptions and then smear them. Have you ever considered that you may be wrong?

- Justice is many things...but it's always about equal treatment under the law. That is...the laws should apply equally to everyone...from the 'king' to the 'serf'.

- The Bushies have brought back the 'divine right of kings'...where the 'king' is accountable ONLY to God and not the people. The King simply says that everything he does is sanctioned by God and punishes those who question him.

[lcordero]

3. from my perception of reality?

"justice" is for rich people, it is something that is bought and sold.
"vengeance" is poor man's "justice".

[AWD]

4. I'm in favor of it

....provided it's naked breasts are not allowed to be shown during press conferences.

[HEyHEY]

5. Baby don't judge me, don't judge me ..no more!

:-) sorry for being a smartass on your thread/

[proud patriot]

6. I think she should be out from behind the ashcroft curtain

[tkmorris]

7. Simply put

Justice is people getting what they deserve, be it good or bad.

The trouble is that there has never been a human being alive who was capable of judging what another human being deserved. It seems highly unlikely that there ever will be.

[Selwynn]

8. Justice: Retribution, Reciprocity and Restoration

In my opinion, in very very broad terms these are the three elements of Justice.

Retribution
One of the most primary ways in which "justice" is talked about is in terms of punishment for offenses. In fact, Justice is often only really thought of in terms of "righting" wrongs via punishment of the perpetrator. When the family of a murder crime cries out for "justice" odds are they are primary cries out for there to be rightful retribution on the offender for his illicit act. Certainly this is one element of Justice, but it is by no means the only one. In fact, I would argue that if the other two dimensions of justice are neglected, no true justice is possible.

Reciprocity
Another way justice is often conceptualized is in terms of "social justice." Reciprocity really has to do with mutual dependence, action or influence. And I chose that word because I believe that part of understanding Justice has to do with understanding the fact that human beings are fundamentally relational/social beings, with interdependent responsibility and genuinely influences connections both individually between people and collective between societies, nations, etc. Because this kind of fundamental interconnectedness is at the core of what it means to be truly human, it is also a necessary and inescapable element of true justice - human rights and social equality are part of that definition.

Restoration
In my opinion this third dimension of Justice is the most overlooked yet equally important. To be sure, part of "Justice" is the idea of "righting wrongs" (defining exactly what constitutes ethics and morality is a completely separate question, equally large). Unfortunately many times in our society, we have the conception that justice is completely about punishing the offender. But that is not true. The truest Justice places primary emphasis on the restoration of the victim! This is heart of true justice. To be sure, part of that restorative process may be to know that the perpetrator of injustice will be punished, but that is certainly not the end of it. In the end, justice has to be equally about restorative healing, mending - a re-membering of the dismembered spirit of the victim. This is much more complicated, and as such society has historically not done quite as good of a job in this domain. But the fact remains Justice is as much about the restoration of the victim of injustice as it is about the retribution on the perpetrator of the injustice - and all of that must be wrapped up in reciprocity, an understanding that ultimately justice is about the sustaining and maintaining of healthy human interrelationships more than anything else.

There - that's an embarrassing simplistic short overview of my theory of justice. :)

[TahitiNut]

11. Perhaps most simply stated (in an inductive fashion) ...

... "justice" is that ephemeral upon which all sociopolitical systems depend to answer the seminal question of "Why do 'the right thing'?"


Yup. I'm relatively pleased with this response. Uh-huh. :noddinghead: :silly:

[TahitiNut]

10. Preliminary question: Is it better to be 'just' or 'merciful'?

Which would you prefer to be called? Why?


On edit: Is it too obvious that I cannot resist such discussions?

[Selwynn]

15. You cannot be called one without implying the other.

[TahitiNut]

19. The "eye4eye and tooth4tooth" crowd might disagree.

Is it not a choice? To say "cannot" seems to deprive one of the choice to see it otherwise. (I tend to wallow in the illusion that I've chosen my opinions and perspectives.)

[Selwynn]

20. You do choose your opinions, and sometimes choose wrong. :)

I tend to believe that understanding justice in is deepest fundamental essence is more about understanding natural law.

You may "choose" your opinion that its OK to go around raping people, but I and the rest of society will reject your "choice" as illegitimate.

So I guess I am arguing that a "choice" that rejects mercy as an inseparable component of justice is not a legitimate one. Some things are they way they are apart from whatever I "choose" to think about them. An apple is comprised of the same components that make it an apple whether I "choose" to call it something else or not. I do have a choice in whether or not I choose to accept the fact that 2+2=4, but if I choose not to accept that, I'll be wrong.

If I'm not making my self clear, I'm saying that I don't believe this definition of justice as necessarily including mercy is something that is up for debate - I argue that it is implicit in the very definition of Justice. To not include a merciful element is to not have justice as at - you can't separate the two.

The reason I believe this is because I believe that mercy is implicit in the definition of justice, and I believe that justice is in fact a concept that is actually ontological - we name it, create certain terms and symbols for it, but in the end, it is a natural and universal reality which we do not invent, but rather come to comprehend through our sentience and consciousness.

So in other words, the eye4eye crowd is wrong. They misunderstand a fundamental truth about the nature of life.

[sweetheart]

12. Justice is innate

It is in the unsullied human heart, and we judge injustice by our own innate knowledge of "true" justice.

The consciousness that knows justice is common to all sane human beings.

Perpetrating injustice is a sort of insanity, to divide ones self from inner truth. And in its outer manifestation, society takes on this role of bringing injustice to justice.

On a less esoteric level. Justice is based on circumstances, and i don't put any faith in written laws, rather in living souls to make justice. Methinks the judge who cannot administer justice because the law has already pre-designed punishment is not a judge.

Justice is dennis kucinich. Injustice is *. Somewhere inbetween are the other candidates. True justice, however, is direct awakening to the truth, beyond words and beyond experiences... pure knowing.

[TahitiNut]

13. This begs the question and ignores alternative perspectives.

For example, those who truly believe that individual human beings are, in varying degrees, fundamentally sinful and/or innately 'unclean' can easily view a life of suffering and servitude as 'just'. Regard, for example, the various caste systems that have existed throughout history. Indeed, monarchies existed for millenia and were most often rationalized on theological grounds -- from "the divine right of kings" to "the king of kings." Inherent in such systems were the transcendant presumptions that 'justice' was supernatural and not solely secular. Even today we have at least one notable religious belief system in which secular 'success' is regarded as "God's will" -- wherein there exists the overt notion that one's authority and economic well-being is presumptive of being a 'good person'.

That which constitutes any individual's notion of 'justice' is largely dependent upon that person's supernatural beliefs.

[sweetheart]

14. Indeed, i was on rousseau's view

That the human consciousness is originally pure.. and that thought and identity are impurities added by culture.

I agree that it is as you say in a wider perspective. Just those latter perspectives include the "thinking mind and identity" as original and presume Descarte to be correct with cogito ergo sum (i think therefore i am) when i'm referring more to the much older sanskrit tat tvam asi (i am that).

THe mind and thought are learned, and illusory. That would make all thinking belief systems regarding sin, and unclean and all that stuff "thinking"... a learned behaviour however much people can cling to pretending its original... when they die.. it dies... however that original awakeness is a deathless seat of justice.

[TahitiNut]

16. It's sad to see a potentially seminal discussion sink so quickly.

Is it possible that so many who regard themselves as liberals/progressives are unaware of John Rawls' book "A Theory of Justice"?? This is regarded by many as the seminal work in support of American liberalism. Rawls is currently regarded as a foremost political philosopher.

[Selwynn]

21. I'm aware of how roundly and brutally critiqued that book was...

...when it first came out. So much so that he wrote another book just trying to pick of the pieces from the scathing criticism. And then eventually revised the original book to fix the problems.

Personally I like A Theory of Justice. I definitely believe that the veil of ignorance is a good concept in terms of political theory.

In saying all that, I am not denying that Rawls is a giant of a political philosopher. I'm just more interested right now on the onto-philosophical questions surrounding the idea of justice, rather than the socio-political ones. :)

[sweetheart]

22. what was that book?

i dunno 'bout that book... i are ignerant.. :)

Can you share your salient insights from the text that we might take the chat further?

[leftofthedial]

17. there ain't none

It is a purely abstract concept to which some adhere because it offers the elusive promise of symmetry. There is no justice. There is only power and powerlessness.

[proud patriot]

18. She should be blind to

Economic status
Race
Gender
family connections

and many other things the might bias someone