10
   

What does justice mean to you?

 
 
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2013 04:53 pm
Like the title reads "What does justice mean to you?"

This is a definition of justice, do you agree with it?

Quote:
Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity or fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 10 • Views: 11,858 • Replies: 58
No top replies

 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2013 09:50 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
This is a definition of justice, do you agree with it?

Quote:
Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity or fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice.


I'm sure it is all technically accurate.

But that definition is so busy trying to be all-inclusive, that there is no room left to actually convey the meaning of the term.

How about:

"Justice is rectifying the wrongs that people have suffered, and if possible, preventing those wrongs to begin with."
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2013 10:37 pm
@reasoning logic,
Justice is the ability a society has of taking care of itself as a productive whole by protecting the fundamental rights of its elements in order to fully develop their competences with equal opportunity and set in a path to individual and communal realization. A good and effective legal system should minimize the collective costs of investing in these goals by minimizing the risks and dangers that may stand in the way of their fulfillment.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 01:28 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
"Justice is rectifying the wrongs that people have suffered, and if possible, preventing those wrongs to begin with."

- How do you 'rectify' things for the victim of a murder?
- What is a 'wrong'?
- Does justice occur before an Act? Would a pre-emptive attack then be justified under 'preventing those wrongs to begin with'?

I don't think that true justice can be codified - although consistent justice can be - and consistency is one of the principles of justice (hence why laws a codified)

Eluding codification, it probably also eludes easy definition.

In the end :
- civilly, it's an unbiased balance between interests (individual v individual v social v environmental).

- Criminally, it's a fitting punishment (where the crime is meant to be balanced by the punishment), and a tool for a level of conformity and peace.

I don't see justice as 'fixing the problem' (it's after all already occurred, and many crimes aren't fixable by a justice system), nor as revenge (which isn't unbiased).
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 03:18 am
@reasoning logic,
Tough question, RL.

One could make a reasonable case that "justice" and "revenge" are more closely intertwined than many would prefer.

The Biblical adage "And eye for an eye..." is about both "justice" and "revenge."

If you think about it, "do unto others..." is also.

I like the thoughts you apparently prefer...but there is this side of the question to consider.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 12:40 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You have a point regarding how many people subconsciously interpret Justice, but then again what they regard as Justice its not what Justice truly is...
In a word Justice is resolution ! (The dissolving of a problem)

...up easing hanger (a reaction) through retribution in a barbaric manner is not the only way of solving the problem, not even the more efficient way as a chain of chaotic reactions is unleashed...although to an extent it can be said it certainly works retribution is just a palliative...first and foremost problems should be avoid through predictive methods, and when that is not possible, one rather should take care of the effective causes of a problem instead using blame which departs its position from the wrong idea of humans having free will...solving a problem properly should represent solving a typology of problem, that is, having a method to avoid the problem in the future.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 01:41 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I get ya, Fil.

I'd love to see a bit less emphasis on revenge and retribution...

...and more on the part of "justice" that would make this world a better place in which to live for EVERYONE.

Justice certainly doesn't mean "equality" in the strictest sense of that word...but it SHOULD mean having some of the disparity now infecting our world be lessened.

Let me acknowledge that I am not sure how to accomplish this...and I certainly understand the problems our "leaders" have with accomplishing it...

...but I hope the next generation of leaders focus on it more than the current group are.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 01:59 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Well yes of course, I meant equality of opportunity's...just that !
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 05:38 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
In a word Justice is resolution ! (The dissolving of a problem)
Hi Fil,

This would be vaguely correct in Civil Justice, but it hardly seems to apply to many aspects of criminal justice - exactly what is being resolved in rape / torture / abduction / murder etc cases?

And I say 'resolution' is 'vaguely correct' in Civil Justice, because :
- resolution doesn't have to be fair to both parties - it just has to be resolved (eg. resolution can occur by force, threat, or ruin)
- resolution could be very inconsistent with previous resolutions, and how is that justice?
- the current system of huge payouts for injuries certainly resolves such matters...but reasonably?

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 05:58 pm
@vikorr,
By resolution I obviously considered dissolving collateral reactions a chain of cause, hanger...not just sorting the direct problem...I don't think retribution resolves anything as it adds destruction to destruction...If you ask me in the future rapers and the like will get proper brain surgery...there is no evil in the world just sickness and ignorance...
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 06:54 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
The Biblical adage "And eye for an eye..." is about both "justice" and "revenge."

If you think about it, "do unto others..." is also.


Can't quite agree with all of that, Frank. The "eye for an eye" dictum is about revenge as well as justice, yes, but if you read that passage carefully its meaning is a bit ambiguous. I read it as meaning that you can take an eye for an eye but that's all. You can't kill or castrate the individual because he took out your eye; you can only demand that he lose his eye as well.

The "do unto others" thing -- usually referred to as the Golden Rule -- is something different. It has very little to do with either justice (as the term is generally understood) or with revenge. It's about mercy, not justice. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" aims at mercy and forgiveness, not equal rights and justice for all.

Btw, that Golden Rule is much older in Jewish theology than the time of Jesus of Nazareth. Rabbi Hillel, who lived a couple of hundred years before the time of Jesus, said, "Don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you." Jesus reversed the passive voice into the active, that's all. Hillel's version, almost without doubt, would have been known to Jesus if he was erudite enough to debate the priests in the Temple at age 12.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 07:51 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Mercy without understanding why mercy is worthless, as charity for charity's sake alone it is just arrogance...true mercy imply s precisely the removal of guilt from the way we frame our problems...and instead of charity I rather choose the word "investment" to frame my view, as I expect return...I guess you didn't understood yet either...oh well... Rolling Eyes
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 07:58 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
You're right, Fil. I didn't understood. I still don't understood. Mr. Green
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 08:11 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
lame comment...understood (IT) yet...you can do better for a reply I am sure...
And no, judging from your trivial reply to Frank you really really didn't !
Instead of mercy start thinking on compassion and understanding why people do what they do when they do it wrong...you go from arrogance to a noble character in a blink !
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 08:21 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
While genuine compassion requires understanding you could be the fool in somebody else s place, Mercy is a gratuitous display of pseudo superiority a form of "racism"...
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 08:43 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
You're right about my lack of understanding. You lost me somewhere about here . . .
Quote:
Mercy without understanding why mercy is worthless, as charity for charity's sake alone it is just arrogance.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 08:53 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

You're right about my lack of understanding. You lost me somewhere about here . . .
Quote:
Mercy without understanding why mercy is worthless, as charity for charity's sake alone it is just arrogance.


There the lazy me is working now:

Mercy without understanding why we must be merciful is worthless, as charity for charity's sake alone is just arrogance...(and empty to)

That better ?
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 09:21 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Grammatically, yes.

Philosophically (i.e. cognitively) -- I'm not sure. Perhaps.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 09:48 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Guilt is one of those products of faith, even the wrongdoers believe in...keeps people in check and its a functional practical product...it just isn't a superior brand of moral, but it sells...I guess if you the type believing in free will, choice, and accountability, then guilt and mercy make a perfect couple...I specially like the expression "begging for mercy", it says it all...
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2013 09:53 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Kyrie eleison.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What does justice mean to you?
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.99 seconds on 01/26/2022 at 05:49:02