43 thoughts on “Is Justice”

  1. Mordanicus says:
    August 10, 2014 at 15:00

    Maybe. It might however more important to have truly great men and women who are able to inspire others to live justice.

    Like

    Reply
  2. john zande says:
    August 10, 2014 at 15:28

    If so, how does the little man, the disenfranchised, receive justice?

    Like

    Reply
    • makagutu says:
      August 10, 2014 at 15:35

      Does he ever receive justice? That is the question.

      Like

      Reply
      • john zande says:
        August 10, 2014 at 16:00

        Ahhhh, tis the question. What is “real” justice?

        Like

        Reply
        • makagutu says:
          August 10, 2014 at 16:03

          Now John, you have spoiled the fun. I have to go back to my philosophy teacher.
          By answering your question, we will arrive at whether justice is possible.
          A while back, I wrote all we desire and call justice, is in my view, seeking to revenge. Either we do it our own way, or we defer it to another to act on our behalf.

          Like

          Reply
        • Nโ„ฎรผา‘โ˜ผNโ˜ฎโ˜‚โ„ฎแนง says:
          August 10, 2014 at 16:18

          John, this is a great point — question.

          “Systems of justiceโ€ฆ for example, can be regarded as the successful transformation of a deep-seated urge for revenge โ€“ euphemized as retribution โ€“ which keeps the urge within acceptable boundaries.”
          Frans De Waal, Good Natured, p. 194

          Like

          Reply
          • john zande says:
            August 10, 2014 at 16:23

            “keeps the urge within acceptable boundaries”

            I think that nails it perfectly.

            Like

            Reply
            • Nโ„ฎรผา‘โ˜ผNโ˜ฎโ˜‚โ„ฎแนง says:
              August 10, 2014 at 16:31

              Revenge and Justice Among Primates

              “Chimpanzees, our closest genetic cousins, are a highly sociable species with a well-developed system of reciprocity. Reciprocal relations probably developed out of the need for food sharing in a species dependent upon food exchange, especially in support of pregnant and nursing females and young offspring.

              Retaliation for breaches in reciprocity became an integral part of the chimpanzee social system and out of this grew a โ€œsystem of revengeโ€ according to the noted primatologist, Frans de Waal (1996). Reciprocal altruism is an idea first developed by Robert Trivers in the early 1970โ€™s. It is a complex mechanism based on the remembrance of favors given and received, allowing the development of cooperative networks that expand beyond kinship ties.

              As de Waal points out, โ€œthe Golden Rule was made by creatures who began following the reciprocity rule, โ€˜do as the other did, and expect the other to do as you didโ€™โ€ (p. 136). The first hints of moral obligation and indebtedness are already recognizable among primates. But Trivers also recognized that a reciprocal relationship would only last as long as there was no cheating.

              Cheating โ€“ taking more than one gives โ€“ undermines the system of cooperation and can threaten everyone in a complex, interactive social system. The only way to protect against this is to make cheating costly, an outcome leading to the evolution of punishment.” Source

              Like

              Reply
  3. Nโ„ฎรผา‘โ˜ผNโ˜ฎโ˜‚โ„ฎแนง says:
    August 10, 2014 at 15:41

    How would you define the term “equals”. Seeing someone as fully human?

    Like

    Reply
  4. aguywithoutboxers says:
    August 10, 2014 at 15:47

    Perhaps this would be possible and true in a perfect world. In reality, is justice ever served? I think not. I hope you are enjoying your weekend, my Nairobi brother!

    Like

    Reply
  5. Nโ„ฎรผา‘โ˜ผNโ˜ฎโ˜‚โ„ฎแนง says:
    August 10, 2014 at 15:49

    Only when they revolt.

    Like

    Reply
  6. themodernidiot says:
    August 10, 2014 at 16:01

    Are there really equals?

    Like

    Reply
  7. tildeb says:
    August 10, 2014 at 18:02

    The term ‘equal’ is being used here in different ways.

    I think Victoria’s suggestion that justice has to be linked to social reciprocity is bang on so I’m not going to suggest that ‘justice’ is another term that needs to better defined for the purpose of addressing the question.

    But ‘equality’ assumed to be synonymous with whatever constitutes equals is a loaded assertion because there are various kinds of equality when used in the same social sense as ‘justice’ (rather than a direct comparison of ‘sameness’ with another individual).

    I think one can have justice without equality as long as the same condition is met for social reciprocity. For example, a small fine for breaking a rule – such as a parking infraction – may have no consequence to the rich person but a serious blow to a poorer one. Justice – in the sense of social reciprocity (no one can park in this place) – is not served unless there is the same element of reciprocity of effect. A small fine for the poor person has the same effect only if the size of the fine produces the same social consequence for the wealthier person. Equality in this sense means an unequal punishment! Justice is only served if there is inequality… to produce equality of effect.

    Like

    Reply
    • makagutu says:
      August 10, 2014 at 20:54

      There is this dialogue in Sophie’s world

      “Come here,” said Sophie.
      She took the girl’s hand and walked with her back to the rich man.
      “You must see to it that this girl gets a better life,” she said.
      The man glanced up from his paperwork and said: “That kind of thing costs money, and I said not so much as a penny must go to waste.”
      “But it’s not fair that you’re so rich when this girl is so poor,” insisted Sophie. “It’s unjust!”
      “Bah! Humbug! Justice only exists between equals.”
      “What do you mean by that?”
      “I had to work my way up, and it has paid off. Progress, they call it.”
      “If you don’t help me, I’ll die,” said the poor girl.
      The businessman looked up again from his ledgers. Then he threw his quill pen onto the table impatiently.
      “You don’t figure in my accounts! So–be off with you–to the poorhouse!”

      What are your thoughts?
      I have no disagreements with your explanation on social reciprocity.

      Like

      Reply
  8. archaeopteryx1 says:
    August 10, 2014 at 19:00

    Following that thought to its logical conclusion, if a man is to be tried by a jury of his peers, shouldn’t a man accused of murder be tried by a jury of murderers –?

    Like

    Reply
    • makagutu says:
      August 10, 2014 at 20:30

      parliamentary commissions are the closes to such a jury, especially when they investigate their follows for diverting public funds, they hardly ever find them guilty of any wrongdoing.

      Like

      Reply
  9. fabryhistory says:
    August 10, 2014 at 23:57

    This question makes me sad, because my own experiences have impressed me to believe that there is no justice without money. But I would like to be argued out of this belief, because it’s so cynical.

    Also, another problem with justice, is that everyone has their own definition of what that is exactly – and that definition is shaped by their personal belief system, or, as Robert Anton Wilson likes to call it, “BS”.

    Peace to you, Noel!

    Like

    Reply
  10. vastlycurious.com says:
    August 11, 2014 at 01:09

    NO! Defintely not!

    Like

    Reply
  11. arsonfire says:
    August 11, 2014 at 18:48

    Live in a way that you seem to be the standard you would like others to be held to and hope it catches on- somewhere between Nietzsche and ghandi and all is good ๐Ÿ™‚

    Like

    Reply

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.