Justice

[Godslayer Jillian]

I recently finished Plato's Republic, and it had the worst ending ever!!
I wanted to torch the bitch.

He took three fourths of the book creating his perfect society so that we could see justice in its purest sense (and on that path, he made some very arbitrary assumptions, making his whole argument only feasible if you accepted those assumptions as true) and condensed the necessity of justice in a fictional story only three pages long.

To anyone that wanted to read it, I'm going to ruin you the ending.
When everything was said and done, the only reason he found for someone to be just, even if in the process he was seen as unjust by society, was that after this life, the just person would be rewarded.

That ending blew!

So, I'm looking for other people to tell me:
Why do you think justice is better than injustice, even if you wouldn't be deemed unjust if you committed injustice?

The cooler the argument, the cooler you'll be.
Heck, you can just invent a story that we all know isn't true, so long as it follows your point . I just want a better ending than Socrates'.

[HumanePain]

Now, I am at work at the moment and a bit rushed, but I just HAD to respond to this one!

The first thing that comes to mind is justice as a deterrent: if there is no justice, life becomes brutish; one can kill his neighbor because of a miniscule disagreement. So justice as a deterrent makes society fair, not because of the punishment dished out after a crime, but because it makes the strong less likely to attack the weak and prevents the crime. Usually.
There are of course those who don't give a rat's ass for any laws and do what they will.

[Methadrine]

Hmm, if memory serves me right (it was ages since I read 'The Republic' though so correct me if I'm wrong) Socrates never really defined what justice was as a constant. He applied different justices to different societies/cultures in the form of cities, or something like that..

As for the question, well.. that too depends. One cultures view of justice isn't the same as another cultures so one atrocity performed in one of them may be considered the opposite in the other. I agree with HP that justice is most easily percepted when in the form of a deterrent. After all, our codes of laws makes up the basis of what should be defined as just an unjust.

[Rae Ven Rae]

Me and my husband argue on this one all the time. He is a very literal being, who holds onto grudges based on the idea that a certain person may or may not have gotten their just deserts for harm they may have done to him. Forgiveness. Moving on. Foreign concepts to him, I suppose because he feels everything so deeply.

For instance, we have a mutual friend who cost my hubby quite a hefty financial penny -- and he still hasn't gotten over it years later.

I am far happier than he. I believe that, in the end, life serves up justice.

Example.

I once had a boyfriend who treated me like crap when he had me, one of those, you don't miss the water until your well runs dry. He looked me up years later to see how I was doing, but I was married by this time.

He told me how the times we had spent were now his fondest remembrances, and how he had never found the same happiness again.

He was even able to bring up memories I had long forgotten myself and as we spoke, I got a sense of his loneliness and regret...

I learned much later from mutual friends that this guy had spoken of me often over the years and had never had the courage to look me up until then.

Now he is moving forward in life looking for something he will have a hard time finding again...this is justice.

Not that I wish him ill, but I think man evolves as he learns from his own messes -- maybe if he ever finds that happness again, he will hold on to it, and treat the woman with a greater respect and appreciation than what was shown to me.

Individuals who have sown discord and strife in people's lives will probably die cold and alone wondering why they are in misery...this is justice.

Why do I have to lift my hand against them -- they have made the trap that will one day ensnare them, and better yet, most won't realize it until it is far too late to change.

That said, there are certain things that require an instantaneous tit for tat -- r*pe, murder, molestation and the like...

But I am talking about the little everyday evils that people try their best to get away with and think they do -- but in the end, despite what we believe, they do not.

I have far too many countless examples of how peoples evil ways turned and bit the on the ass...

Justice...

[Methadrine]

Justice is in the eye of the beholder then?

[Rae Ven Rae]

I suppose so -- in my hubbies opinion I am full of shit -- if things aren't burning and someone hasn't lost an eye -- justice hasn't been served. I have never been someone who like, boils a rabbit or slashes tires when angry -- I simply walk and let life take it's course. This made me a target until I made smarter choices (one aspect of reaching justice is understanding our own culpability in our victimization, not in unhealthy self blame, but coming to terms with mistakes and bad decisions, something I had to do to heal) Self -justice is just as important as self love. This frustrates the shit out of him -- he thinks I should be more angry and bitter (had a tough life). I am not. Bitterness sucks. Been there done that, bought the t-shirt and the sippie hat that says "I am number one" -- it is a sure path of pain and spiritual destruction. So, as I see it, I live my life and let Karma do what it will...it almost always does...

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Methadrine

Justice is in the eye of the beholder then?

I don't think this can be possible. If justice is in the eye of the beholder, then nothing is just.
Justice has to be intrinsically objective. Otherwise people would get away with things in the name of justice (ironically so)

[Methadrine]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I don't think this can be possible. If justice is in the eye of the beholder, then nothing is just.
Justice has to be intrinsically objective. Otherwise people would get away with things in the name of justice (ironically so)

Thus we perhaps should further divide the concept of justice. We have 'personal justice', as Rae Ven Rae illustrated, justice in such thing as one gets what one deserves towards people and regard in attitude, more or less "karma"... and then the justice system we have in a society. The one that put people who kill other people in jail so that they serve time for the injustice they've done... and people get away with things in the name of justice there too, sadly. :/

[shadow__]

Concepts like justice and social rules in general appeared first when mankind started living in groups and society emerged. There had to be a series of behaviour restrictions so that everyone could live in harmony with each other; such as, not to kill a fellow because if not anyone can come and kill you (whoa stupid example) and such. As different groups evolved and changed as a block, so did those restrictions, according to the circumstances the societys had to face and the personality of the individuals. So, if you think it that way, justice can be subjective. None the less, i think there is a certain logic common to everyone that determines what is fair and what is not.

[Rae Ven Rae]

But then -- who defines what constitutes a "crime" and what the punishment is? I mean, we certainly know that harm against another is wrong -- but what of self defense? The lines can be blurred and mangled till we want to do away with a system that lets akiller go no matter how justified.

Some legislators even want to take the option off the books as a valid defense because it has been misused so often -- but then -- only cops would be able to utilize it. Bad idea.

Many woman are locked up today for killing abusive hubby's and beaus who were beating them within an inch of their lives. According to national statistics, it would be reasonable to assume that if the abuse had continued, they themselves would be dead.

If so, is incarcerating the woman justice?

On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have a case in Texas, where a man snapped and killed his ex wife in front of their eleven year old child, and got off becasue she was "asking for it," by flaunting her new relationship. Justice?

To twelve people it was.

Where do the parameters begin and who decides?

[Vyvian Blackthorne]

Goth as Mod. I AM MOVING THIS TO THE WHINNING THREAD AND CLOSING IT. LULZ.








I have exactly no idea what you're talking about, JILL-E-UN... In other words: 'dude I dont get it.'








Goth forever
Goth Forever
Goth forever

[Methadrine]

Originally Posted by Rae Ven Rae

Many woman are locked up today for killing abusive hubby's and beaus who were beating them within an inch of their lives. According to national statistics, it would be reasonable to assume that if the abuse had continued, they themselves would be dead.

If so, is incarcerating the woman justice?

Depends on how you see it. The woman who kills the abuser could've reported it to the police instead, she could've moved then file for divorce instead.. but she decided to sink to the very same level as the abuser.

Ofcourse, I don't like hubbys who beat their wives either, and death probably would serve them to a degree, but what happens if the lawsystem bends on the rules regarding this? I'd bet that a lot of murders would erupt in that manner as it would be a convenient way of getting rid of hubbys or wifes in marriages that doesn't really work and where the two partners really hate eachother. "He beat me!" - "oh, okey.. you're free to go then!"

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Rae Ven Rae

But then -- who defines what constitutes a "crime" and what the punishment is?

This is now the question which I'm pondering about.
The question of 'why justice' was easily answered with a combination of this thread, your phrase of 'missing the water when the well is dry' and a remembrance of one part of the Republic.
Justice is necessary. We know that. Someone that commits injustice without being called unjust wins more than someone who is just and is considered unjust. But if everyone was unjust, this would not be so, because the unjust only profits from the just.
Just as in Socrates' perfect society, he pulled the philosopher/rulers out of their higher state of existence to rule this world which, to their eyes, is wretched compared to the truth they have seen.
I don't agree with his assumptions in that, but he makes a very good non-arbitrary point:
It's all about common content.
the philosophers could have been more happy in their higher state of existence, but they had to be pulled down so that they could order the lives of their subjects and also make them happy.

An unjust man is more happy than a just man if he's seen as just, but the overall happiness of society would be crippled if everyone was unjust.
Justice prohibits you from some acts, but it helps to the overall happiness of society.

The question then, now, is what is Justice and what is Crime?

[biohazard]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

The first thing that comes to mind is justice as a deterrent: if there is no justice, life becomes brutish; one can kill his neighbor because of a miniscule disagreement. So justice as a deterrent makes society fair, not because of the punishment dished out after a crime, but because it makes the strong less likely to attack the weak and prevents the crime. Usually.
There are of course those who don't give a rat's ass for any laws and do what they will.

I agree with Humane Pain. Justice is there to precent and reduce crimes, to prevent the strong from attacking the weak(As HumanePain said). What differs people from animals is that we have the ability to differ right from wrong, and justice helps those who can`t differ right from wrong. Although true justice can never be achieved, some justice can be applied to prevent crimes.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

...
It's all about common content.
...
... but the overall happiness of society would be crippled if everyone was unjust.
Justice prohibits you from some acts, but it helps to the overall happiness of society.

The question then, now, is what is Justice and what is Crime?

Change happiness to effectiveness and you have your answer:

Whatever hinders individual contributions to society or disturbs the peace of the realm is crime. In your words, whatever cripples society is a crime. This is why Treason carries a death penalty in the United States. But my point is in agreement with yours: whatever individual or organizational act cripples society is a crime.

Yes Jillian, you and shadow__ are correct in guessing that justice and laws are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand that change and evolve (are customized) over time, which of course they must do because society changes over time.

Take Mexico for example: No death penalty. No Justice. Ergo, crime runs rampant, police officers who are supposed to protect the population prey upon it with "the bite" (forced bribes or robbery), there is no real deterrent to murder, because there is no capital consequence to murder. (In my humble opinion.) The people know the government is corrupt and so do not expect transparency or honesty from it, and subsequently that government is free to hide secret agreements with drug lords.

And that was just using Mexico as an example. The United States is no better, with Presidents pardoning past Presidents of felonies and dispicable acts, O.J. Simpson buying justice so that he can escape being punished for murder and so on.

[Cyntrox]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I don't think this can be possible. If justice is in the eye of the beholder, then nothing is just.
Justice has to be intrinsically objective. Otherwise people would get away with things in the name of justice (ironically so)

Tell me then... What is objective justice? I mean, when people are put in jail, it's because the law says it, but someone obviously wrote the law after their subjective opinion.

[Godslayer Jillian]

In that, I agree with Andrew.
"We have 'personal justice', as Rae Ven Rae illustrated, justice in such thing as one gets what one deserves towards people and regard in attitude, more or less "karma"... and then the justice system we have in a society."
The 'objective' justice is in the end subjective, but it is objective in that everyone in a society is subjected to it.
Therefore, justice is as objective as it can be, as it is immutable in society's Reality.
Justice, of course, can change, but I believe it's not so much because those in power change justice, but because those in power change society's Reality.

[Methadrine]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Justice, of course, can change, but I believe it's not so much because those in power change justice, but because those in power change society's Reality.

Nazi-Germany is a good example where those with power changed the society's reality. There was some serious twisting of justice in that timeperiod.

[shadow__]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

In that, I agree with Andrew.
"We have 'personal justice', as Rae Ven Rae illustrated, justice in such thing as one gets what one deserves towards people and regard in attitude, more or less "karma"... and then the justice system we have in a society."
The 'objective' justice is in the end subjective, but it is objective in that everyone in a society is subjected to it.
Therefore, justice is as objective as it can be, as it is immutable in society's Reality.
Justice, of course, can change, but I believe it's not so much because those in power change justice, but because those in power change society's Reality.

Jillian>Thread

I completely agree with you

[Drake Dun]

Humane Pain has already given the only definition that makes sense: a deterrence system.

Whatever word games we play, we're not going to get a definition of justice that is objective in the ordinary sense of the word. The idea of people in power changing society's reality is a diverting excercise in dialectical chicanery, but it doesn't change the fact that those people are enforcing rules that they made up, not ones that they discovered.

You might as well ask "what is morality?" Personally, "justice" is a yellow-flag word for me. As soon as it gets trundled out I stop walking and take my hands out of my pockets, if you know what I mean. Put it another way:

"Justice" is a magical word that you spout before inflicting violence upon someone in order to feel good about doing so and to get others on your side.

There is a strange way in which people's hipocracies come out in their symbolic systems. In the West, Justice is a blind woman waving a sword around. People never combine unadulterated cruelty with a masturbatory sense of righteousness quite the way they do when in the service of this curious deity.

Here's a nice example of her handiwork:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...a110433D50.DTL

Drake

[Rae Ven Rae]

yes -- but Justice, like anything, is a complex structure -- it has a need to exist in a civilized society, but the definition can alter depending on what side of the justice stick you are on...

[Cyntrox]

What bugs me about society is that one instance has claimed the right to judge others, and have taken that right away from them. Even acting in self-defense, there's a fine line of what you can do. I remember reading a story some time ago, where a man got robbed. He followed the robber to his house, and then took back his own things, and got jail time for it. Is that just?

[Circle V]

Nietzsche speculated that gratitude is a form of revenge, as it accomplishes much the same thing-- by stepping into the sphere of whoever has meddled in your affairs (through violence or charity or ill deeds and thus diminished you), you reestablish your sense of power.

Punishment should never be meted out by the state-- the courts should do exactly what is necessary to ensure that a criminal's trespasses do not occur again.

On the other hand, Nietzsche cautioned not to requite evil with good, for doing so would put the trespasser to shame. "Rather prove that he has done some good... And rather be angry than put to shame." (that probably isn't verbatim).

In general, people who cause us harm are enemies or friends (and should be respected as such) or inconsequential, in which case one's superiority should be revenge enough.

[Don't Look Behind You]

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I was too lazy to read all but the first post.

Anyways, my view of justice is that there is no actual justice. Justice is an ideal that a society has to aim at in order to have people atleast trying to be just. A society has to have some unreachable ideal in order to function.
Justice cannot truely exist becuase in order to be just one has to be just not only to one person but to ALL, which is not possible. Atleast one always has to suffer becuase someone else decides what justice is in a given case. Justice is subjective.
But why be just, then? Well I guess the only reason truely is that injustice is considered immoral and bad, and being injust you get condemned, which no one wants. There is no other reason really. Societies consist of many regulations and norms that are invented for the sole purpose of keeping the society functioning. The fact that these regulations have imbedded themselves in our consciousness as morals is just too bad for us, I guess.

[Cappinator]

Justice is in the eye of the Beholder as said before. Differentiating between different kind of justices is not the way to go. Instead, divide the Beholders into groups, then see how this applies to the notion of justice in relation to these groups.

Personal justice, as Rae mentioned, is the justice of one person.
Society's justice, is the justice of a group of people.

We all know that Man is a social entity (a herd animal if you will) and while we maintain our individuality, we DO adopt some aspects of the group, however small they may be.

For example, most of us uphold the law of our country, even if we don't agree with them. This can be because we understand the necessity for order and a system based on laws, or because we plain simply don't want to end up in jail. But this still means that your personal justice may or may not be the same as your Society's justice. Though on some level, you accept both.

So, in short, justice IS in the eye of the Beholder, and it's not justice that changes but who's doing the beholding.