I came upon this thought while replying to the thread about whipping a rapist who ended up putting the little girl in a hospital for 2 weeks.

Justice (from dictionary.com)
jus·tice [juhs-tis]
–noun
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

Justice refers to moral rightness

Moral (from dictionary.com)
mor·al [mawr-uhl]
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

Ok what I'm trying to get to is this, It all boils down to bringing a right to wrong. (justice)

People talk alot about universal justice, or like in the U.S. ".....With libertyand justice for all"
How can one group say something is justice, when in reality views on justice differ soo much. Justice, or righting a wrong depends on what a culture/religion/society decides on as what is right, and what is wrong. In reality Justice is Relative to the culture/religion/society. My question is who first thought up what is just, and why were theese ideals accepted by society. As we have seen from the past what is right and what is wrong has changed over the years with regions/cultures/timeshift/religion/socialogical shifts, for example in ancient times in rome it was ok for a grown man to have sex with a boy, yet we frown upon this today.

My question is how can WE (this pertains to any specific race/culture/religion/belief system) decide(or how did we decide) what is right and what is wrong thereby defining what is just and unjust, if justice is relative?

While I don't have an answer to your question, it's a good topic

For instance, does Japan have one of the safest countries in the world because of it's strong sense of 'personal honour' as a vital part of community and country? And I think they still have "hard labour" as part of their penal system" - so wonder if it's the threat of 'justice' or the threat of being ostrasized (spelling) by one's own community or those factors plus the 'personal honour' that all contributes? How about Austria, I wonder? They rank right up there as one of the safest countries in the world, as well.

It would be fascinating to learn how our members from so many different countries view their own and other countries as 'safe or dangerous' to live in and why they feel this, based on your question ...

"My question is how can WE (this pertains to any specific race/culture/religion/belief system) decide(or how did we decide) what is right and what is wrong thereby defining what is just and unjust, if justice is relative?".

For myself, at least in my little area of the country, I think our 'moral' code was different at one time and 'justice' has far harsher than it is now. Per capita, overall, our crime rate has shot up considerably in the last few years - lots of factors, of course, but I do wonder if the lenient 'justice' system is a large factor.

As Sokrates pointed out (for example in Protagoras 330a and following), people use the term justice without a clear conception of what it means, and whether it applies in a particular case.
Perhaps meditating on the logically and existentially prior question, namely what is it about humans that they require---or have historically created--- norms of any sort (not merely justice codified into law), will help clarify the discussion, and direct it away from endless and unresolvable debates over what is just.
Regards,
John

John

Socrates is not my favourite light reading, LOL, but I can see what he is getting at. Justice is that which is agreed as right by a group of people in a particular location, hence the variations in different countries. Therefore there is no such thing as absolute justice.

Cheers

I disagree with the last line.When Justice is seen to be carried out to one's complete satisfaction,then I believe 'Absolute Justice" has been achieved.

Makes sense to me, so I agree.

What he is saying is that because Justice/right/wrong are decided by one group of people (therefore all groups of people will have some little alteration on what is just and unjust) in one area. There cannot be absolute universal justice. This is the exact point I'm trying to get at.

While the concept of justice seems common to mankind, its contents vary by the perspectives of each society. For example, the negative confessions in the book of the dead---which are to be used at judgement before Ma'at---have several references to avoiding the misuse of water in canals; since Egypt was dependent on irrigation for the success of its crops, this would be an important part of one's claim to be a just person.
Regards,
John

The word "Universal" has just crept into the equation. Was 'Socraties' refering to 'Absolute Justice' or 'Absolute Universal Justice'?
I haven.t read his writings, and thought from previous posts,it refered to 'One's Absolute Justice'.
I am more interested as to what one guages as 'Absolute Justice' in todays World.
If we wanted to take the Nile as an example,then we could Question the way our Tax Dollars are spent,and on,and on,and on.
Absolute Justice regarding the aftermath of Crime,and what different people accept as 'Absolute Justice' having been served is very interesting,to me anyway.

Some times it's understood that law is justice. IMHO at times they are far apart from each other. At one time in this country only white male land owners could vote; that was law but not justice. When a man is convicted of raping a little girl several time and only gets 3 mo. suspended sentence, thats law not justice. (Fox News this week) I think our founding fathers could of had this is mind when they gave the power to pardon to the president.

Yes, while there could be 'perfect justice' if everyone agreed, I can't imagine that ever happening. But having said that, I do feel that if one moves to a country and chooses it for our homeland, we should and must abide by that countries laws and suffer their penalities if we do not.

Perhaps all we can ever hope would be our own own 'justice' system to become a tad more sensible?

For instance, governments do love to create lists and endless amountst of 'red tape', ... so perhaps revamping the Justice system could actually happen one day.

All it would take is one person using old fashioned common sense to sit down and create a list ... and sort through catagories of crimes to fit certain criteria and if it does, any person commiting that crime (upon conviction) gets an exact and same sentence, regardless of which Judge is in the Court deciding sentencing.

It's always struck me very odd that one one area someone who shoplifts gets 1 year, first conviction. In another area, someone who robs a corner store with a gun gets 9 months. And yet again, someone who pre-plans a vile deed of, for instance, rape and murder, can be sentenced to 7 years - but with good behaviour and crowded prisons, be back on the street in less than 10 months. Walking free long before the person who shoplifted for the first time.

Yup, ever so odd and ever so confusing - at least to me - and also perhaps one of the reason that so many of us don't perceive 'Justice' as truly existing anymore?

I think the question centers around whether there is a universal (and therefore absolute) conception of what justice is. Sokrates (not necessarily Plato) made the habit of talking to others about justice, or the good, and showing them that they used these terms haphazardly and without authentically knowing what justice was, or what they meant by good. It was Sokrates who knew one thing only, namely that he did not know.

Justice as a concept does seem to be something almost universal in the human world, from the earliest times (Book of the Dead) to the present, and we find today throughout the world that the term is meaningful (if only as a goal). At the same time, the acts that count as just acts differ in place and time.

Now we also seem to feel that the legal system and its laws should, as far as possible, promote justice. History, for example, is full of rebellions against governments making what was felt at the time "unjust" laws. Are we using "justice" in precisely the same way when we talk about 1) the laws themselves, 2) the operating of the legal system, and 3) and about what constitutes "Justice"?

Regards,
John