Political Crossfire Forums

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

I have often wondered what "justice" is. It is very hard to define. How do you define justice?

For instance for Thucydides Justice is: "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".

Alternatively, is Justice advantage of the stronger?

It seems to me that Plato suggests that justice is an unchanging and abstract and we can only see manifestations of it.

So, what is justice?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7781

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: So, what is justice?

Justice is the product of a sovereign legal system.

Gus · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 7309 Location: Tampa, FL

IMO, since morals boil down to emotion, justice I think is best described as revenge/avengement. People have been trying to rationalize it for millenia, but in the end I think justice comes down to simply a strong desire for someone to be punished.

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Gus wrote: IMO, since morals boil down to emotion, justice I think is best described as revenge/avengement. People have been trying to rationalize it for millenia, but in the end I think justice comes down to simply a strong desire for someone to be punished.

That's the position of Cleon in Thucydides. In effect, justice as suggested by him was a product of anger, which gives rise to demand for revenge. But then again, it begs the question: will the concept of justice disappear when people are calm and not angry?

LostSoul3412 wrote: Justice is the product of a sovereign legal system.

Interesting argument, but the question has to be asked: will the concept of justice disappear without a soveriegn legal system?

Green · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:13 am Post subject:

In debate, I usually use the definition of justice as giving each what they are due. I commonly extend that to include unalienable rights, that I state that all are born with these rights naturally, and it cannot be taken away.

Paladin · Joined: 08 Oct 2005 Posts: 212 Location: Heart of Texas

Justice

1. Justice by the Law- The law gets brought upon ALL violators.
2. Justice of the Good- The wrong are punished for their violations of humans innate rights.
3. Justice of God- Karmicly recieve their just claim from their thoughts, words, and actions.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

Let me upset every ones apple cart.

Justice is a form of a relationship.

Now, it is before the law, as Abelard said: Jus is the Genus, and Lex a species of it.

It is not punishment unless punishment is called for and just.

It is not giving each his due because this implies a neutral third party, yet is -to each his due, and this implies a past and future relationship, whose terms are not fixed, but dynamic, as all relationships are, living qualities shared by living people.

It is, like every form of relationship, different in each and every case. Justice will always have an incomplete definition because it is a facet of living people's lives. The dead are often offered justice. They have no need for it. It is living people who suffer its want, and living people who must always bend all their energies to dividing this necessary and scarce commodity among all. Yet, Justice as a form is the same for each in a relationship. This is to say: If two people, one rich, and the other poor, are arguing over a dime then justice for one will be Justice for both. Justice for the condemned will be Justice for the victim.

As much as we are handed a tyranny in cast formal relationships by lords long dead and buried, so we want to hand to future generations fixed ideas of justice, truth, liberty, and etc. Realistically this is impossible, and only confounds the lives of others. Justice, like government or laws can be made all form and no relationship. This effort that seems to go on without respite of building up forms while tearing down other forms is perhaps a defining quality of humanity. Yet, I believe most people would agree that those relationships with the least formality are the most desirable. Why then, should we build up a form for the protection and deliverance of justice when sooner or later such a form will become an impediment to justice, and perhaps to freedom? If we can simplify our thoughts, and see justice as an essential form of all relationships, we can then begin to look for it in every relationship we have with others.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7781

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Justice is the product of a sovereign legal system.

Interesting argument, but the question has to be asked: will the concept of justice disappear without a soveriegn legal system?

One cannot have justice without judgment.

British boy · Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 325 Location: London

LostSoul3412 wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Justice is the product of a sovereign legal system.

Interesting argument, but the question has to be asked: will the concept of justice disappear without a soveriegn legal system?

One cannot have justice without judgment.

But isn't that justice in the terms of law? vigilante justice, is prohibited by law but is still a form of justice deemed illegal.
I agree about judgement though :-D

British boy · Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 325 Location: London

Fido wrote: Let me upset every ones apple cart.

Justice is a form of a relationship.

Now, it is before the law, as Abelard said: Jus is the Genus, and Lex a species of it.

It is not punishment unless punishment is called for and just.

It is not giving each his due because this implies a neutral third party, yet is -to each his due, and this implies a past and future relationship, whose terms are not fixed, but dynamic, as all relationships are, living qualities shared by living people.

It is, like every form of relationship, different in each and every case. Justice will always have an incomplete definition because it is a facet of living people's lives. The dead are often offered justice. They have no need for it. It is living people who suffer its want, and living people who must always bend all their energies to dividing this necessary and scarce commodity among all. Yet, Justice as a form is the same for each in a relationship. This is to say: If two people, one rich, and the other poor, are arguing over a dime then justice for one will be Justice for both. Justice for the condemned will be Justice for the victim.

As much as we are handed a tyranny in cast formal relationships by lords long dead and buried, so we want to hand to future generations fixed ideas of justice, truth, liberty, and etc. Realistically this is impossible, and only confounds the lives of others. Justice, like government or laws can be made all form and no relationship. This effort that seems to go on without respite of building up forms while tearing down other forms is perhaps a defining quality of humanity. Yet, I believe most people would agree that those relationships with the least formality are the most desirable. Why then, should we build up a form for the protection and deliverance of justice when sooner or later such a form will become an impediment to justice, and perhaps to freedom? If we can simplify our thoughts, and see justice as an essential form of all relationships, we can then begin to look for it in every relationship we have with others.

Okay... I dont agree but for the sake of debate can you give me an example or evidence to support that?

Atlas Bergeron · Joined: 27 Aug 2006 Posts: 2680 Location: Reality

The question is "what is justice"?

To answere the question, we will have to realize what justice relates to. Justice is an observance of reality--more specifiically it is an observance in the proper way for men to exist within reality. "What is that proper way?", you may ask. This is where justice gets into rights. What are rights? Rights are the proper relations of men to other men. Thus justice [idealy] bases its basic premises from that of rights. Rights, by definition, are the way men should live with other men. For instance, it is right that men survive, thus it is right that men use thier reason to support thier life (since reason is the only means by which we have to survive).

Thus justice is properly described as the proper relation between men, where the common standard of value is rights.

If you want a further discussion of rights, then I would suggest you start another thread.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7781

British boy wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Justice is the product of a sovereign legal system.

Interesting argument, but the question has to be asked: will the concept of justice disappear without a soveriegn legal system?

One cannot have justice without judgment.

But isn't that justice in the terms of law? vigilante justice, is prohibited by law but is still a form of justice deemed illegal.
I agree about judgement though :-D

"Vigilante justice" is not justice. The vigilante is not a sovereign legal entity, and thus has no authority to issue justice.

That is why "vigilante justice" is illegal.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

British boy wrote: Fido wrote: Let me upset every ones apple cart.

Justice is a form of a relationship.

Now, it is before the law, as Abelard said: Jus is the Genus, and Lex a species of it.

It is not punishment unless punishment is called for and just.

It is not giving each his due because this implies a neutral third party, yet is -to each his due, and this implies a past and future relationship, whose terms are not fixed, but dynamic, as all relationships are, living qualities shared by living people.

It is, like every form of relationship, different in each and every case. Justice will always have an incomplete definition because it is a facet of living people's lives. The dead are often offered justice. They have no need for it. It is living people who suffer its want, and living people who must always bend all their energies to dividing this necessary and scarce commodity among all. Yet, Justice as a form is the same for each in a relationship. This is to say: If two people, one rich, and the other poor, are arguing over a dime then justice for one will be Justice for both. Justice for the condemned will be Justice for the victim.

As much as we are handed a tyranny in cast formal relationships by lords long dead and buried, so we want to hand to future generations fixed ideas of justice, truth, liberty, and etc. Realistically this is impossible, and only confounds the lives of others. Justice, like government or laws can be made all form and no relationship. This effort that seems to go on without respite of building up forms while tearing down other forms is perhaps a defining quality of humanity. Yet, I believe most people would agree that those relationships with the least formality are the most desirable. Why then, should we build up a form for the protection and deliverance of justice when sooner or later such a form will become an impediment to justice, and perhaps to freedom? If we can simplify our thoughts, and see justice as an essential form of all relationships, we can then begin to look for it in every relationship we have with others.

Okay... I dont agree but for the sake of debate can you give me an example or evidence to support that?

BB...That is a large 'that' with a minimum of conclusions related to justice. If you can't narrow your question I will guess I am writing to an empty address. Yet, I am sure I can give you an example for every thing I say because all my conclusions are drawn from examples.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

LostSoul3412 wrote: British boy wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Justice is the product of a sovereign legal system.

Interesting argument, but the question has to be asked: will the concept of justice disappear without a soveriegn legal system?

One cannot have justice without judgment.

But isn't that justice in the terms of law? vigilante justice, is prohibited by law but is still a form of justice deemed illegal.
I agree about judgement though :-D

"Vigilante justice" is not justice. The vigilante is not a sovereign legal entity, and thus has no authority to issue justice.

That is why "vigilante justice" is illegal.

First, who has to have a judge for judgment? If you believe Kant, and if I understand Kant I might say I believe him that all knowledge is judgment, then, we all judge all the time, or else we know nothing.

Second, Justice is not issued. Justice is found. Authority that is not itself fully and always just is itself unjust and has no right to issue anything. Justice exists as a concept apart from all authority. Justice exists as a reality in part of every person's life. Justice as a practical matter is like fresh air; and if you do not get enough of it you die, but if you get too much it usually does not kill you.

Justice is no abstraction to be kept in a judge's pocket. We know it by example, and see its dark reflection in injustice; and from these examples build an abstraction, a concept, and idea, and a form called justice. We all know it in the abstract, but in reality cannot give it a finite definition; but to be human we must seek to give justice meaning in our lives without a precise definition.

Corona · Joined: 15 Oct 2006 Posts: 155 Location: Sierra Vista, AZ

Justice is simply the paying of all debts, and I dont just mean in money. Justice is the concept that a man gets what he earns, whether it be a paycheck, a death sentence, or a fine.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

Corona wrote: Justice is simply the paying of all debts, and I dont just mean in money. Justice is the concept that a man gets what he earns, whether it be a paycheck, a death sentence, or a fine.

It seems like a fine definition so far as it goes. I think I would say a conception instead of the concept, as the suffix implies a process rather than an object. I guess I would not limit it to the mortal plane; but say also that people may be judged by God, but will certainly be judged by history unless their injustice fixes that with permanence. I think we have to ask who is to judge, and question if or whether that power resides in all of us or is a special authority only granted to the wise and the blessed. And I think you should consider that as much as we want to carve justice in stone that it is primarily situational, and that if it is not a part of every person's daily life they will be unhappy, and possibly dead. I think you should consider whether justice is a virtue as I believe it is, and see how it compares to other virtues. Perhaps you will agree that no virtue stands alone. Rather, all the virtues stand together as a structure to shelter the whole of society.