Justice
Tuesday, June 24th, 2008What is Justice and is it Individual or Social?
“I DEMAND JUSTICE!!!!” Wait a second, maybe I don’t.
Webster defines “justice” as
The maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.
Ok, so what is “just?” Once again, my favorite dictionary “Webster’s,” defines “just” as
Having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason.
Now, what can we extrapolate from these definitions. Well, what I derive from these definitions is that if you demand justice, you demand that someone administrate and provide what is fair either by adjustment of the circumstances, punishment, or reward based on conflicting claims in a manner that is conforming to fact or reason. Does that about hit the nail on the head for you?
Now you have to ask yourself this question… Do you want “total” justice? Do you want justice based on everything you’ve done in your life? Or on the other hand, do you only want justice for a particular event that has occurred in your life. I find it funny when recidivists “demand justice” when something bad happens to them. I can imagine them sitting in jail and somebody steals their soap dish and they whine and complain and “demand justice” that their soap dish be returned to them. Don’t get me wrong, I believe it would be just for them to receive their soap dish, but one could make the argument that their soap dish being taken was part of the administration of what was just for them to begin with. I know that is kind of an absurd scenario, but hopefully I’m getting my point across at least a little bit. What we do to get ourselves in the situation we are currently in is most of the time a result of the actions we took to get where we’re at.
Now, I also know there are many people that are falsely accused or that have a string of “bad luck” and do not deserve the things that have happened to them. Trust me… I know this all too well and I’m sure many of you have had things happen to you that were not justified as well. There are many of us that have a right to “demand justice.” However, I would also argue that if you live in the United States, the majority of us have already been treated more justly than many people in nations across the globe. Were we born with more rights than other people? If you read my last post about equality, I believe in what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
In believing in that statement, I of course believe that every human being on the globe should be treated the same and as equal to the next person, unless they lose that right through actions of their own of course.
Do you want individual or social justice. What if one were to give you justice, but in providing justice for you, would have to provide injustice for two other people? Would you consider that justice for all parties? Obviously not. Would you still want justice in that scenario? I’m sure you’d be asking, “well, what is the punishment if I accept the injustice so two people could have justice?” and “what punishment would the two people receive if I were to receive justice?” I will stop that tangent before I go too far, I just want you to think about justice as being more than “what’s in it for me?”
After discussing justice and thinking about justice as an idea rather than a right, do you consider justice as a social or as an individual idea? Myself, I consider justice as both… I know, I’m taking the easy way out! But not really. Considering justice as a function of both an individual and a social idea really complexifies (copyrighted word 
) the concept of what is justice. This complexity, amongst many other things such as IQ, is a reason that I am not a judge. I would find it very difficult to discern from the conflicting sides of arguments a just decision that would be the most just for the parties involved and the effect it would have on the parties that are connected to the two primary parties involved.
Each decision a judge makes is like throwing a pebble into a pond. The pebble serves as the parties that are directly affected by the judges decision. The judge decides where into the pond to throw the pebble. However, once the decision as to where to throw the pebble has been made and the judge renders his decision and tosses the pebble, the events that follow are now out of the judges hands. It’s up to the judge to try and foresee what and whom his decision will effect in the future and make his decision based on that information and foresight. Now, when the pebble hits the pond, many other people will be effected by the decision the judge has made, or the ripple from that pebble. Is that ripple flowing across the pond doing the most justice to society as a whole, or did the pebble only provide justice to the people that were directly involved in the matter. After thinking about how difficult it would be to make those decisions all I can say is, Judges, I salute you.
BlogMarks
Furl
Newsvine
Rojo
Email This to a Friend
If you like this then please subscribe to the 
