What is Justice?

[Holiday20310401]

Justice is the moral rightness, as if there is an absolute. The only absolute one can conform to is the self. So justice is much like sanity, except that sanity is the defining of the reactions taken place and justice is a depiction of what makes moral rightness and what should attribute to reactions. When something is justified it is morally sound when it is morally righteous to the values of the person reacting to their environment. What I mean by ‘values’ is anything or well… anyone that has value or potential on you yourself. So one is forced to act in a manner to the values in a way that initiates a two way merit of reactions upon one another, while still fulfilling the bounds of our behaviour to act out of self interest, or rather, self preservation of the ego.

An easy way of separating the terms justice and insanity is that you could define a lone person as insane but not unjustified. Justice takes place in respect to interactions between subjects valuing each other.

In your opinion, what is justice? Can we have a more justified political system than democracy? What does it mean to say that democracy is the worst form of government and the best one there is? Is there not a more justified political system.

Is there an ideal social system that can be based off of claims of what justified happens to be?

[nameless]

'Justice' is spelled;
R*E*V*E*N*G*E

('justification' has a variety of meanings)

[Doobah47]

The way I'd begin interpreting the word 'justice' is in the most obvious fashion - through deconstruction of the word into integral parts:

This might seem naive and banal, but I don't care...

just -> juc-ed -> cuj-ed -> caged :- so the opposite of 'caged' could be interpreted to be 'just'

ice -> water -> steam :- so not quite boiling over with energy, nor even capable of fluid motion, simply floating and morphing (contracting / expanding) to suit environmental conditions. Does this refer to the subject of 'justice' - frozen in a specified form, floating at the surface and exposed to the attention of passing sailors/alcoholics/seals? when justice has been enacted is the subject to resume form as water/gas, depending upon which form the subject/judge thinks would be most suitable.

The word itself is a paradox, even at this basic level - ice is the most static form of H2O, yet this state is preceded by a notion of not being static/caged in a specific form/place.

Of course it is clear that 'justice' is entirely relevant to the (morally) adjudicated act toward the subject; so some notion of isolation of responsible body/subject is the basic point...

I think of interesting connotations with the Ant-/Arctic and massive organized crime institutions...

End of night-time rambling, more sleep and less caffeine methinks makes for less moronic piffle...

[Holiday20310401]

Well ok... So, is an insane person who can only commit insane actions capable of justice?

I think the answer is no.

[Doobah47]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Justice is the moral rightness, as if there is an absolute.

The only absolute one can conform to is the self.

So justice is much like sanity, except that sanity is the defining of the reactions taken place and justice is a depiction of what makes moral rightness and what should attribute to reactions.

I should agree, but I don't think I can. Morality as a concept is never just, it might be justified, yet pronounced connections to social normality tend to be a foundation of institutionalized 'justice', more so than morality I'd say.

Theorists and journalists (one could also read 'ring-leaders' or 'gossips') are a major influence upon more 'social' (individually/collectively moral) justice, so in this context I would tend to agree that definitions of good/bad are essential proponents of conclusive opinions, which are ordinating factors in acts of 'proper' justice. However, I am very much opposed to 'good/bad' being used as analytic definitions of real phenomenon; although I do not doubt that inside the mind of the individual 'good/bad' are very useful, yet I'd prefer if such moral decisions were intuited over one's own actions and not taken as decisive factors in the judgement of others. I do not think that this obstructs 'justice' taking place in either an institutional/social context; the institution of law is supposed to deliver deserving measures to people brought to it's attention - my opinion is that the quality of legal/factual representation is a bigger issue obstructing justice than the law or any definitions/regards for 'morality'.

Justice takes place in respect to interactions between subjects valuing each other.

I agree, although I'd differentiate between merit and morality in the context of inter-personal evaluation.

Can we have a more justified political system than democracy? What does it mean to say that democracy is the worst form of government and the best one there is? Is there not a more justified political system.

The problem with modern 'democracy' is that it differs from the notion of justified freedom/capability to access political/economic power. The notion of demography in party-affiliated 'democracy' totally corrupts the ideal of a collective self-governance by legislation of anarchy. Whether this corruption serves to simplify choice for extremely massive populations, or whether it is designed to neutralize/coerce the power of the electorate is a debate I'd have - maybe it is designed to allow for more polarized debate, a connection to moral righteousness I'd like to see abolished. My thought is that corporate media/economics have too much sway over the government/electorate, a problem extenuated by polarized party-affiliated 'democracy'.

[Stringfellow]

My favorite explanation of Justice comes from Plato's Protagoras where Zeus tells Hermes to distribute to humanity, "qualities of respect and a sense of justice" for for each other so as to "bring order to the cities and create a bond of friendship and union." The social aspect of justice here is what really grabs me. Justice and respect are a gift for us to keep unity among our communities. This brings the question then, "is justice relative?" Do different communities require different definitions of justice and respect? Most certainly given a historical perspective, but the key is that justice exists and is one aspect of the nuclear community, city, state...an ideal and practice that brings not only unity, but a sense of order.

S.

[backworldman]

there are many answers to what a persone deserves, but not so many on what a persone needs to become good.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by backworldman

there are many answers to what a persone deserves, but not so many on what a persone needs to become good.

People need only foresight to be good...People do evil out of ignorance and if knowledge results in good it is because knowledge is the awareness of ignorance, and as such, it makes all knowing people reticent to do anything when good will not likely result...

[Fido]

IN general, Justice is a form of relationship... And in specific, justice is defined by the situation... There is this justice, and that justice, but never a specific definition of justice covering all situations... So, as a form of relationship, it is between any two given people, and between them, justice is what they decide, what works for them and what they can live with... It is not just what they dispute over, but what they share in such a way that honor is kept, and peace to; and while all can live with some injustice, and enough justice; no one can live without any justice... It is because people find it essential to life that it is a subject of conversation, and a form of relationship...

[Elmud]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Justice is the moral rightness, as if there is an absolute. The only absolute one can conform to is the self. So justice is much like sanity, except that sanity is the defining of the reactions taken place and justice is a depiction of what makes moral rightness and what should attribute to reactions. When something is justified it is morally sound when it is morally righteous to the values of the person reacting to their environment. What I mean by ‘values’ is anything or well… anyone that has value or potential on you yourself. So one is forced to act in a manner to the values in a way that initiates a two way merit of reactions upon one another, while still fulfilling the bounds of our behaviour to act out of self interest, or rather, self preservation of the ego.

An easy way of separating the terms justice and insanity is that you could define a lone person as insane but not unjustified. Justice takes place in respect to interactions between subjects valuing each other.

In your opinion, what is justice? Can we have a more justified political system than democracy? What does it mean to say that democracy is the worst form of government and the best one there is? Is there not a more justified political system.

Is there an ideal social system that can be based off of claims of what justified happens to be?

Justice is natural consequence.