Topic: What is Justice? (Read 19437 times)

Crystalmonkey · « **on:** December 08, 2004, 07:02:15 PM »

We were tackling this issue in English Class a couple of weeks ago, while reading "The Republic" by Plato, and were told to write an 8-9 page paper on it. I thought it might be an interesting topic to bring to the forum. After we debate this out, would anyone mind if I posted, "Do we have Liberty and Justice for all in America," as a follow up? I really like discussions so, I hope you guys don't mind me trying to start some in here. I will try my hardest not to act stupid, though old habits die hard. I'm trying to turn over a new leaf in this forum.

What is Justice in the soul? What is Justice in the state?

Edit: 6-7 pages, woopsies

BizB · « **Reply #1 on:** December 08, 2004, 08:33:08 PM »

We're not doing your homework for you.
Why don't you tell us what you wrote? Maybe even paste it in here. It might be interesting reading.

xolik · « **Reply #2 on:** December 08, 2004, 08:36:31 PM »

Ask Tyr. I bet he knows.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #3 on:** December 08, 2004, 09:00:54 PM »

Okie Dokie Here you go

Edit: I didn't want to paste the entire 7 page thing (The 9 page one was something different Woops!) If you really want me to, I would be happy to, but I figured it might tick off a couple of people so I just posted the file.

Anonymous · « **Reply #4 on:** December 08, 2004, 09:23:09 PM »

Quote from: xolik

Ask Tyr. I bet he knows.

Ah yes... The one eyed one handed beggar knows justice.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #5 on:** December 08, 2004, 10:06:57 PM »

Ilmater is a Jesus rip-off.

(I'll read that thing when I get home)

derry · « **Reply #6 on:** December 08, 2004, 10:42:24 PM »

justice is subjective = does not exist

Law · « **Reply #7 on:** December 08, 2004, 11:22:18 PM »

Quote from: derry

justice is subjective = does not exist

You are just Mr. Sunshine, aren't you?

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #8 on:** December 08, 2004, 11:22:58 PM »

At the moment I am reading "A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls. A very interesting book and I reccomend it if you want to get an interesting perspective on Justice.

Edit: Oh, by posting this paper on the site I think it is clear I want you guys to give me your criticism of it. Flames and all...

derry · « **Reply #9 on:** December 08, 2004, 11:36:25 PM »

i'm just saying the search for justice is fruitless....as plato should have known. we "create" justice....it does not exist on it's own. it is not natural, as nature is impartial. if we could abandon justice, then we could begin to live in a harmonious state.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #10 on:** December 08, 2004, 11:40:06 PM »

Why does something being subjective preclude its existence?

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #11 on:** December 08, 2004, 11:46:51 PM »

This is from Wikipedia regarding "A Theory of Justice" (The book I am reading)

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

The most important parts though are the explanation of Rawls theory:

The First Principle of Justice

First of all, each person would have the most extensive system of rights and freedoms which can be accorded equally to everyone. These include freedoms of speech, conscience, peaceful assembly, and so forth, as well as democratic rights. Rawls specifically excludes the freedom of contract from the list.

The first principle is absolute, and may never be violated, even for the sake of the second principle. However, various basic rights may be traded off against each other for the sake of obtaining the largest possible system of rights. Rawls falls squarely into the deontological (duty-based) school of ethics, in the tradition of Kant, as opposed to the consequentialist school exemplified by the utilitarians.

The Second Principle of Justice

Secondly, economic and social inequalities are only justified if they benefit all of society, especially its most disadvantaged members. Furthermore, all economically and socially privileged positions must be open to all people equally. For example, it is only justified that a doctor makes more money than a grocery clerk since if this were not the case, no one would study and train to be a doctor, and there would be no medical care. Therefore, the doctor's greater salary benefits not only him, but all of society, including the grocery clerk, since it permits the clerk to get medical care. This particular economic inequality benefits all of society, and leaves all its members better off. Note that one may disagree with the particular example of the doctor and the grocery clerk, but this is the type of reasoning which Rawls says must be used to justify inequalities. Unlike the utilitarians, Rawls does not allow some people to suffer for the greater benefit of others.

This is all directly from Wikipedia, I've included the link above. This seems to agree with what I have read so far, so I leave it up to you to interpret whether he is right or not. At the least, it should give you something to think about.

derry · « **Reply #12 on:** December 09, 2004, 12:03:05 AM »

rawls is clueless!!!.....and so the cycle of selfishness and greed continues.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #13 on:** December 09, 2004, 12:18:14 AM »

Quote from: derry

rawls is clueless!!!.....and so the cycle of selfishness and greed continues.

That was a very nice arguement... oh wait you didn't say anything except attack him then make a general statement with no evidence... want to try that again, only this type actually make an argument?

xolik · « **Reply #14 on:** December 09, 2004, 12:23:18 AM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey

Quote from: derry
rawls is clueless!!!.....and so the cycle of selfishness and greed continues.

That was a very nice arguement... oh wait you didn't say anything except attack him then make a general statement with no evidence... want to try that again, only this type actually make an argument?

I hope this isn't going to be a trend....

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #15 on:** December 09, 2004, 12:25:20 AM »

Quote from: xolik

Quote from: Crystalmonkey
Quote from: derry
rawls is clueless!!!.....and so the cycle of selfishness and greed continues.

That was a very nice arguement... oh wait you didn't say anything except attack him then make a general statement with no evidence... want to try that again, only this type actually make an argument?

I hope this isn't going to be a trend....

What isn't going to be a trend?

xolik · « **Reply #16 on:** December 09, 2004, 12:34:06 AM »

What you said. People making personal attacks and generalizations with no evidence to back it up with.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #17 on:** December 09, 2004, 02:24:12 AM »

Quote from: xolik

What you said. People making personal attacks and generalizations with no evidence to back it up with.

I love that thread - but I didn't get mine in before the first one crashed:

I saw the sign it opened up my eyes I saw the sign

Anonymous · « **Reply #18 on:** December 09, 2004, 09:16:36 AM »

I would argue that the justice itself isn't subjective in principle. In fact, justice is black and white. There are laws in place. If someone can demonstrate you broke a law, then there's a consequence. It doesn't get plainer than that.

The reality however is that subjectivness is part of the justice process. It occurs at three stages:

1. During creation or modification of laws. Not only is this subjective, it is also very contextual. The critical question is why. Why does a law exist? Why should a law be amended? Why should a law be created? What is the purpose?

2. When one attempts to demonstrate a law was broken. "Innocent until proven guilty" makes things complicated. The question isn't "Is the law clear?". It is. The question is "did the accused in fact break the law?".

3. Finally, in certain juctice systems, subjectivness occurs after a person was declare guilty of breaking the law, at the stage where the punishment is determined. Some systems are very clear: You break this law, this is the consequence. It's very specific and there's no room for interpretation. In other cases, the system isn't clear at all: You broke this law, now what are we going to do with you?

If one wishes to keep a legal system in place, one must accept a certain degree of subjectivness. Technically, it would be possible to remove subjectivness from my 3rd point by specifying consequences for each and every possible infractions. But that wouldn't be very wise. When it is time to determine punishement, some things need to be considered. More specifically, things that cannot be certain. This is where you get into profiling for example. This is where you attempt to evaluate future risks. And although your conclusions cannot be certified, they will greatly affect your decision. This is called judgment. Judgment can be somewhat scientific when you use tools and experience to back it up. That's the difference between good judgement and bad judgement. For example, psychological testing can influence judgment. And although such testing doesn't predict the future, there is a probability and a risk level associated with that process.

Now everything from above was based on a single assumption, which is one we probably all made: the purpose of justice. I assumed that the purpose of the justce system was clear to everyone. But if I'm wrong, than everyhting I said above is irrelevant. Read on, I'll explain.

People tend to forget that justice isn't simply about establishing laws and punishing those who break them. It goes beyond that. It can be about quality of life. It can be about equity. In the end, it's about someone's principles. The ultimate purpose of a justice system can vary. Justice is nothing but a mere tool to accomplish a goal. Such goals could range from creating an environment where people can get along with one another to creating an environent where one can hold power and control the peasants. Like any system, the judicial system can be abused. It happens. It sucks. But you must not condemn justice because of it's subjective elements. These are necessary for the system to work.

The real question you need to ask yourself isn't about justice being subjective thus useless. It's is about the purpose of the tool. What is the purpose of justice where you live?

Having said that, this leads to more questions. Is the purpose something I support or oppose? If I support the purpose, then is justice an adequate tool to accomplish it? Are there other tools that could be used to accomplish the purpose? IF I oppose the purpose and want to accomplish my own, then do I wish to use this tool called justice? If so, then I'll nedd to modify the existing system so that it accomodates my needs.

Before you talk about justice, you need to agree on the purpose. It's like trying to reinvent the ruler without determining that the purpose of the ruler is to measure distance. The ruler is simply a tool. I can assume that the purpose is to measure distance, but what if the purpose of the ruler was to smack people when they bug you? Then one would reevaluate the ruler and amend it's design to enable support of the purpose. One would get rid of the measuring units. Maybe we could add a little spike at the end. That would make a good smaking ruler. Maybe add flexibility in the shaft? Or even a handgrip on one end!

What I'm saying is you can debating the justice system all you want. Point out flaws and suggest improvments. But until you determine the purpose of the justice system, you are waisting your time. You can't redesign something if you don't agree on the goal. Don't just assume what the purpose of justice is. Don't assume everyone else made the same assumption you did. You probably need to state the purpose of justice in order to provide a context for the discussion. Then, you can talk about justice and suggest changes to the system.

So when you're teacher asks "Do we have Liberty and Justice for all in America" you should reply "The question makes no sense because it lacks context and since I am not presumptuous enough to assume what that context is, I choose not to answer until you provide me with a clear query."

Of course, the teacher won't get it and you'll fail, but at least you'll be right.

Law · « **Reply #19 on:** December 09, 2004, 09:28:56 AM »

Quote from: Lacerda

I saw the sign it opened up my eyes I saw the sign

That song is haunting me on three boards now. Thank you for exposing the conspiracy...

derry · « **Reply #20 on:** December 09, 2004, 10:25:34 AM »

i don't mean to make generalizations...in my mind (even when drinking), what i type seems crystal clear. my statement wasn't "wordy", but what is it i need to argue?
to me, justice exists because of selfishness...plain and simple. i deserve this, i derseve that, this isn't fair, that isn't fair....waaaaa, waaaaa. Also, i understand the need for justice, law, whatever in the present material world, so there's no need to explain. However, it is needed for one simple reason.....we are selfish! Can society function without it?...Yes, but it is impossible until we no longer put ourselves first.
rawls and all the other "experts" realize that even with this "justice", there will be inequalities.....but even they "justify" those inequalites and deem them acceptable? so, what's their point? what have they achieved?it seems silly as hell to me, as nobody is addressing the root cause. sorry if this is being too general?

Law · « **Reply #21 on:** December 09, 2004, 11:48:37 AM »

Quote from: derry

i don't mean to make generalizations...in my mind (even when drinking), what i type seems crystal clear. my statement wasn't "wordy", but what is it i need to argue?
to me, justice exists because of selfishness...plain and simple. i deserve this, i derseve that, this isn't fair, that isn't fair....waaaaa, waaaaa. Also, i understand the need for justice, law, whatever in the present material world, so there's no need to explain. However, it is needed for one simple reason.....we are selfish! Can society function without it?...Yes, but it is impossible until we no longer put ourselves first.

Uh... yeah. Your argument is a warped circle and you would be just fine in a lawless society until someone wronged you and then you'd be screaming for justice and laws and all your blah blah.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #22 on:** December 09, 2004, 12:26:10 PM »

Actually Rawls does cover the purpose of Justice, I just didn't put in on the board. From what I have read, he is trying to say that justice is used to appropriate things, such as rights and property, based upon a widely accepted system so that everyone can work together. I'll add more to this when I get home (In 3 or 4 hours)

Anonymous · « **Reply #23 on:** December 09, 2004, 12:27:15 PM »

You think our selfish nature gave birth to the concept of justice?

Ha!

Oh, and I'm not selfish.

derry · « **Reply #24 on:** December 09, 2004, 12:30:36 PM »

Why would i be wronged?...selfishness.

again, in this selfish world, the "wrong-doer" likely felt justified in his action. as the courts, or i would feel justified in my vengeance. then, others would not feel as though the court or myself acted justly. on and on, it just never ends. we consider 100,000+ innocent deaths (women, children, etc.) in Iraq as "just"....why? because we create and determine what is just.....however, justice is Not something that exists independently from us. justice isn't something flowing thru the universe. i understand the desire to persue equality, however it is not possible until we relinquish the concept.

since we're living in a Christian America (of which its laws are based), do you think there is a need for "justice" in heaven? will we be bickering over "what's mine", "what's yours", etc., etc.?? i think not.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: What is Justice? (Read 19437 times)

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous