What is justice?

[xtremerebel]

The difference between 'right' and 'wrong, and 'justice' varies from society to society. Is there any 20th century philosophers that advocated for one justice system that would work for all?

Also, what forms of justice do you find the most oppressive and ineffective, compared to what forms of justice do you find the most 'for the people' and fair? And could a one system of justice work in this world?

[mikelepore]

I consider it oppressive for a society to pretend that people are equal merely because the law applies equally to them. This point was demonstrated by the sarcastic comment of Anatole France: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Literally, the most oppressive thing that has ever been called "justice" would be something from the history books, perhaps the policy of Vlad the Impaler.

[Knight of Cydonia]

in a capitalist world like this? justice is a myth! no one can be "equally" equal nowadays. and even you can buy justice itself in the law house. you got 'green" you can buy justice and got away from any kind of crime you've done. and sometimes even in our own families (the smallest and simplest model of a government in my thought), no one can act equally equal to others...

as for what forms of justice do you find the most oppressive and ineffective, is the one that the US and friends had. they play and act like they own the world and be the only "world police". end of story!

[New Tet]

jus·tice (...) n. 1. The quality of being just; fairness. 2.a. The principle of moral rightness; equity. b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness. 3.a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
b. Law. The administration and procedure of law. 4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason. 5. Abbr. J., j. Law. a. Ajudge. b. Ajustice of the peace. --idiom. do justice to. To treat adequately, fairly, or with full appreciation.

I think "fair" is the operative here; Capitalist law is just but rarely fair.

The system of wage labor and profit is "just" within the context of its property laws but it is unfair because it enriches one side at the expense and impoverishment of the other. Besides, it's outmoded and harmful and, by rights, ought to be abolished and made illegal by revolution.

[xtremerebel]

Of course, the capitalist system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the elitists profiting off our hard work is not justice at all.

I would still like the names of any philosophers who have advocated a justice system for all humanity, and was around in the 20th century, if that's possible, thanks.

And, what is the particular philosophy of the user responding to this topic of fair justice for all of humanity? Would your particular system of justice work for all? How?

[New Tet]

Of course, the capitalist system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the elitists profiting off our hard work is not justice at all.

I would still like the names of any philosophers who have advocated a justice system for all humanity, and was around in the 20th century, if that's possible, thanks.

And, what is the particular philosophy of the user responding to this topic of fair justice for all of humanity? Would your particular system of justice work for all? How?

Although not formally a philosopher, Erich Fromm comes to mind as someone in the 20th century who, among other things, advocated a "fair justice for all humanity". But keep in mind that Marxists emphasize the class nature of justice and fairness in a class divided society; that it varies and is relative. That, I think, is our point of departure in any materialist discussion about justice, legal or otherwise.

[Meridian]

Justice is exercise of power, done by the powerful and on the less powerful.

Justice also theoretically means a system where some standard or criteria of equality is achieved, or the means by which such an existance, within a larger context, may be achieved.

In society and in everyday use of language you will see a little of both.

[syndicat]

well, it's necessary to distinguish what people THINK justice is, and what it is in fact. Struggles for greater equality, against oppression and exploitation, are called "justice struggles" or struggles for economic or social justice. This suggests that injustice is domination, oppression and exploitation. Exploitation presupposes domination. It means that a more powerful group is taking advantage of a vulnerable, dominated group in order to shift the balance of costs and benefits in the social economy to their favor...gain profits off their labor, or gain profits by shifting costs onto them, such as a more intense work pace or exposure to pollutants.

so if we extrapolate from this practice of social movements, I think we can say that injustice is domination, oppression, exploitation. An ideal justice would be the absence of these things in society. So it doesn't matter what "theory" a philosopher comes up with. Rawls can try to justice capitalism in his "theory of justice." But capitalism is a system that thrives on structural inequalities on various lines (nationality, gender), is based on domination and exploitation of the working class. So it is an unjust system, no matter what "theory" is concocted to try to justify it.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I haven't read Rawls' specific arguments in favor of capitalist economics, but his idea of "justice as fairness" is one of the strongest philosophical arguments I've ever encountered.

Also, Rawls' basic ideas are not entirely incompatible with communism. He simply suggests that if it benefits everyone, inequality can exist. He moves onto capitalism from this. I still favor communism, of course, but we might add in a Rawlsian flavor.

If a communist society has a famous author, that person will have everyday difficulties like we all do. But society wants another book as fast as possible. If people choose to willingly give that person assistance, at their own expense, they are fully entitled to do so. The issue is with giving the person control over the means of production, which is bad, not giving them everyday material advantages.

A society that lets Einstein wash is clothes instead of working on his next theory is a society that isn't maximizing the benefits for all its citizens.

I don't know what justice is, but I'm not in the relativist camp. I like Rawls and Utilitarianism, for instance. They aren't exactly compatible. I like some of Kant's ideas. Derek Parfit is a big influence on my views. There are a ton of interesting ethical theorists and ideas.

I really don't think it's acceptable for justice to be relative because, frankly, I find it too damn interesting. That's a terrible reason, I know. I just really find the whole topic fascinating. I also have analytic reasons for not believing it is relative, of course. Aka, if you can get the same pleasure from killing a baby or helping the elderly, you should do the latter if you want to be just.

The underlying idea of Plato's Republic that "reason must rule" is an interesting view. I'm not a monarchist, obviously. Relativism about justice is very common these days. The same goes for ethics. I think this a confusion between "what we are motivated to do" and "what we would ideally do." Ethics might simply be an analytic process with no real significance. It might turn out the ethical thing to do is kill everyone. I'd argue that ethics exist "out there as a relationship" but that doesn't mean anything with respect to whether or not people will accept them or act on them.

I have personal and philosophical problems with most every theory on justice and ethics. I find specific ethical cases "should I do x or y" much easier to answer than theoretical models that answer all questions.

[btpound]

Justice is a concept that stems directly from the superstructure that supports any society. Any given society's concept of justice will be in a way that supports the morality of the ruling class. Our concept of justice stems from our position in society as the working class. Capitalism is "just" to the capitalist, but "unjust" to us the working class. You could say it is all relative, but that's not true. The slave master must always recon with his morality when he is enslaving another, they therefore create a malformed concept of justice, whether by considering the slave as subhuman or even bringing God into the equation. But this morality will be resoundingly false.

[syndicat]

but the question wasn't, What concepts of justice are there? but what is justice?

[Svante]

in a capitalist world like this? justice is a myth! no one can be "equally" equal nowadays. and even you can buy justice itself in the law house. you got 'green" you can buy justice and got away from any kind of crime you've done. and sometimes even in our own families (the smallest and simplest model of a government in my thought), no one can act equally equal to others...

as for what forms of justice do you find the most oppressive and ineffective, is the one that the US and friends had. they play and act like they own the world and be the only "world police". end of story!

överens med,there is no justice anywhere except i n capitalist societie were you can buy it if you are rich. the rich capitalists i n society have powver and there can get anything they want this include the justice for themselve.

[Calmwinds]

The difference between 'right' and 'wrong, and 'justice' varies from society to society. Is there any 20th century philosophers that advocated for one justice system that would work for all?


I think this serves as a good answer to what you say

http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2007/05/ethical-discourse.html


That rape victims, rather than culprits, are stoned to death in some cultures does not make rape the slightest bit less immoral; It merely demonstrates the backwardness, inferiority and immorality of those cultures.

[Decolonize The Left]

Perhaps our word “man” (manas) continues to express directly something of this feeling of the self: the human being describes himself as a being which assesses values, which values and measures, as the “inherently calculating animal.” Selling and buying, together with their psychological attributes, are even older than the beginnings of any form of social organizations and groupings; out of the most rudimentary form of personal legal rights the budding feeling of exchange, contract, guilt, law, duty, and compensation was instead first transferred to the crudest and earliest social structures (in their relationships with similar social structures), along with the habit of comparing power with power, of measuring, of calculating. The eye was now adjusted to this perspective, and with that awkward consistency characteristic of thinking in more ancient human beings, hard to get started but then inexorably moving forward in the same direction, people soon reached the great generalization: “Each thing has its price, everything can be paid off”—the oldest and most naive moral principle of justice, the beginning of all “good nature,” all “fairness,” all “good will,” all “objectivity” on earth. Justice at this first stage is good will among those approximately equal in power to come to terms with each other, to “come to an agreement” again with each other by compensation—and in relation to those less powerful, to compel them to arrive at some settlement among themselves.

- August

[black magick hustla]

but the question wasn't, What concepts of justice are there? but what is justice?

the question is meaningless without a particular context. as is with any particular question about "what is ....". that is why nobody could answer socrates

[AK]

In my opinion, justice is the idea that you can punish the offender of a crime against any party or someone who performs an unethical act.

[Dean]

- August

I don't like such top-down analyses.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Justice is applicable to every society. When applied to a bourgeois society it takes on the form of enforcing their hegemony. I do not see why real justice could not be put in place in a worker-controlled society.

[RedRise]

When people do good deeds they should be rewarded. a) to set an example to others and b) so that they feel good for doing something good. That is one side of justice. The other other side of justice is punishing people who do bad. Almost the same reasons.

[ComradeMan]

When people do good deeds they should be rewarded. a) to set an example to others and b) so that they feel good for doing something good. That is one side of justice. The other other side of justice is punishing people who do bad. Almost the same reasons.

I agree with your sentiments but the problem is with what is "good" and what is "bad"- and also what sort of punishment is right?

There is one school of thought that says "the only real crime is being poor", leaving aside people who are "mentally ill" and perpetrate heinous deeds.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Justice is achieved when an unjust act is redressed and the victim feels whole again.


?

[Buffalo Souljah]

Well, it depends on who you ask. If you asked the Greeks, "what is justice?", the answer you're liable to get, and this comes out of Plato's Republic, is to give to each 'what is due to him', ie. to do good to your friends, and evil to your enemies. The Christian scholastics thought a bit different. They believed in what philosophers refer to as the 'logic of superabundance', in which you're no longer told to love your friend, but love your enemy. Some say this is where Christian philosophers split with "rhyme and reason" and went into the absurd. So, if you go from what Amos wrote, justice is an a priori that will "roll down like a mighty river". Ultimately, I think what you're dealing with when you're talking about justice will always bas itself out of a a firm commitment to the protection of civil rights, because you're making generalizations about what each person is entitled to. I say I believe in justice, that it is a fundamental principle of my spiritual beliefs, which themselves are exerted upon my political beliefs, so that the two are interrelated and mutually dependent. You can't influence one without influencing all the rest. So, certainly, a variable in all of this is where do we find citizens, people in relation to the over-arching macrocosm that exists around them and envelops them? How do we get to where everybody is respected and treated equally without any preconditions as to their race, class, gender or ethnicity? How do we organize our thinking around notions that establish firm rights to every individual, and which encourage those individuals to grow and expand beyond what they're given? How do we ensure this? I argue with Jacqes Derrida and the rest of 'em that as soon as we give them justice, that's when. There is a great heterogeneity to human thought, but there are certain basic principles to which we are all entitled, and this is what the term justice constitutes. How would the Civil Rights leaders have established their points of view and changed the system if they had not firmly rooted their disagreements in theoretical and ethical a prioris, that blacks were by the fact of being human, entitled to the same rights as whites, or that women, for the same reason, should be extended basic rights that everyone is entitled to in a just system. Anything else needs not concern us!