What is Justice?
From Mirriam-Webster online dictionary:
Definition of JUSTICE
c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
c : the quality of conforming to law
See Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Capt. Anand Kumar on
-
For the serious, academically inclined, here is a set of 12 excellent videos explaining what is justice in the modern context.
To the spiritual explorer, Bhagvad Gita, verse 4.7 may hint that justice is restoration of balance. The questions a) and b) could be answered in light of this. If there is imbalance, even if caused by someone or something else, is it my duty to attempt to restore it? What happens if I do not do so?
-
Permalink Reply by Hari Menon on
-
Dear Captain,
Whatever justice,is, man may say - it would still fall short of Divine or Gods justice - we cannot compare what the Bhagavad Gita says on Justice since it is eminently attainable for God , but in the worldly context no amount of discussions can lead us to believe that perfect equality will be there . In a human sense it is more of
Equality in inequality and inequality in Equality . The main thing is that even if the whole of the human race vanishes away , still god can mange things on his own , his justice includes animals and insects and birds and everything . One never feels disgruntled with God but man yes. See the difference in the human view and the Divine , there is a presumption inherent in the human view , but no such presumption in the Divine or Godly .
Sandal says nothing new , Nobody is saying anything new , myself included , but sandal is a much sought person- he lacks intellectual honesty which is why he is living off Aristotle and other people . He is much feted because in this modern world we do not have the perseverance to read good books and mediate and connect our thoughts - everything has to be off the shelf . What value is there in an unethical person preaching ethics ?. Why do you find this news Item noteworthy ? Always the rule is one has to be ethical - merely understanding words will not confer anything .
We pay money to be tricked , knowing we will be tricked - much as people go to a magic show . Nobody is asking us to find out the theory of relativity or Ethics or Philosophy or Theosophy - we are only asked to read and understand - it is a poor intellect which cannot read and comprehend things , it is an insult to intelligence and our maker .Why cannot people take pains to read the originals and not the half pennies worth of thought floating in the market places cheapening what is good - if everyone understood me I would be only average - and to be average is to be popular and commonplace in the intellect and spirit .Courting popular esteem is the worst that can happen to a person .
-
-
Dear Joe ,
The definitions belong to different areas of human thought ,feeling and action and have to be seen as such.
1a. Relates to he Idea or word Idea of Justice so it is - A Fundamental Description of the Word Idea by a definition through a slightly Negative view of there being opposing parties meriting reward or punishment - it is a General Definition of the Action involved in bringing out the desired result .The grounds for existence of such an action requires or necessitates opposing views which require reconcilliation . It is thus not a positive concept but a negative concept .
b. This actually is a word indicating the Intellectual nature of the Action wherein purportedly Justice is brought about .and which is instrumental in adminstering or maintaining Justice .
c.The third is only a restatement of 1 a) in every respect by the use of a different sentence construction - but conveying the same meaning as 1 (a). with the difference that it emphasizes on Laws and not perspectives and opinions of individuals .
2(a) Is a Virtue and is more concerned with Ethics .
(b) This too has Ethical connotations.
(c) Is from one side Ethics relating to conduct in groups - It is not a pure virtue , but is looked on as Desirable .
3. Is better if understood as not the Real Truth - but the relative truth obtaining to the facts on hand - ie. Not one of Sathya (Truth Proper) but of Nyaya (Legal Truth).
Feelings of Injustice spring from the individual only (in an autocracy - the subjects who have similar feelings of injustice aggregate - that is all , it is highly individual ). Now the question is why does this feeling arise in the individual and how does it arise - every individual feeling arises as a conseqence of some other condition attendant to it and not otherwise .
So a feeling of injustice arises in a person "in an as a result of" condition . This condition must be something which the individual sees as valuable to him within himself and he further assumes that it (his condition) is equally valuable to everyone else on earth or whoever they may be . This assumption is not a conscious resolve founded on a firm reality but rather on an unconscious acceptance of certain beliefs which he considers as given and forming an integral part of his personality and life . To illustrate the issue :
A person values his car or another possession he has - now when another person interacts with this object or "condition'' of his - not exactly in the way he would himself he feels upset or unhappy . In other words the other person does not value or place an equal value that he himself (the owner) places on this condition .
The consequent feeling of "being upset" or "irritated" are just smaller manifestations of a feeling of injustice .In other words these are the nuances of injustice which is Particular but very general - why I say so is that a person cannot exactly and with clarity define what is unjust and if at all he could he would be able to only relate it only by an example which is no knowledge as it is very personal .In other words the man "feels" injustice has occured but cannot convey the knowledge unless by a specific manner other than in a way which is not particular to him . It may not be injustice to another listener .
So the standard is the person himself and he uses his opinions (which we all know are not the truth) as the benchmark . And so with everyone . But if a group like say PETA feels injustice the constituents of the group will subjugate their injustice as an individual and make common cause as like the individual and society - it is an averaging out - this averaging out is the Ideal stated for disaffection or the level of disaffection required to be a member of an institution .
Knowing these the man of clarity must feel whether he requires to be identified with a particular kind of disaffection or affection - no clear rules on injustice can emerge .
Cheap Drugs for Indians , or Guns for Americans, and so many other things have their own norms for injustice . Because injustice starts at a very high level - it is reason that judges and it is a very high level in evolution , and man can only reason - so it is a very subtle principle emanating from the intellect further coloured by the Ego .
Even the courts go by certain rules and evidences and custom and usage and again they look into whether his rights to live etc were infringed and so on - This is general - it may seem as if he gets full justice but there will be either more or less as all are just feelings !!.It is very complex because a man who wins a case may be said to have exacted a measure of happiness if it was between adversaries of unequal standing - like a poor man winning against a rich man , it is doubtful if the rich man will have the same feelings of justice on losing the case. Between equals maybe the measure of satisfaction on winning and losing would be more closely allied and if we could measure even maybe they would cancel themselves out - but these are only conjectures.
-
-
Thanks Hari.
Sri Krishna is amongst one of the most popular Gods to be worshiped in India. I wonder if that makes him unintelligent. Or unethical.
The concept of Divinity, like the concepts of morality, ethics and justice is also dynamic. It will change over time. Whether "restoration of balance" is indicative of definition of "Divine Justice" or not is the point to be considered here.
Something that can be understood easily can only be average is a strange assertion. Sufi thought proclaims, "hum hain to khuda bhi hai", meaning the Gods exist because of us. To take the view that there is only one valid means of knowledge is stranger still.
Why people read or think or conduct themselves in a manner other than the one prescribed by "One Source of Knowledge" type of thought system is a question all the organized religions have struggled with for a very long time. Ordinary people can hardly answer this question. And even if answer came it would be declared as rubbish by the intellectuals, because it is not from a God. An ordinary author George Orwell struggled with this question too, in 1984, declaring "Freedom is Slavery", perhaps implying that one may need to become a slave to a thought to attain freedom.
-
-
Dear Captain,
No offence meant ,maybe my thought structures are a bit wayward and the fault is mine . do forgive me for ending up by producing more doubts in your mind rather than pointers to a happy situation . I am a bad manager !!!
-
-
It is true that Michael Sandal is not saying anything new. He is only taking the work of his Guru John Rawls who in his much acclaimed book "A Theory of Justice" argued for JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS. One only wonders if FAIRNESS could be synonymous with BALANCE in the context of justice.
© 2024 Created by Theosophy Network.
Powered by
