In some online discussions I have been asked what I thought justice was / is. It would seem an easy question to answer. In composing this response I have discovered the opposite is true. Justice is a difficult thing to explain. I looked online for an appropriate definition and found several views. One said, " Justice is achieved when an unjust act has been redressed and the victim feels whole again. " In thinking about that I concluded that the attainment of Justice would then be dependent upon the victim. If justice can only be achieved when the victim feels whole again, would not that feeling be subjective ? The victim harboring any resentment from the wrong committed against them would never feel that justice had been served. Another statement on Justice says, " Justice gives closure to society in that it allows the citizens to move forward,feeling they are safe. " Again it seems that justice would then be dependant upon the ( citizens ) victim. Closure must come from the wronged.
Justice, it would seem to me, means equality. To be treated in an equal fashion under the law, or in society. Justice is served when the victim has been recognized to be equal. I think that is what is meant in the Pledge of Allegiance when we say, with Liberty and Justice for all. Liberty being freedom and justice meaning we are all equal under the law.
We seek justice ( equality ) when we have been wronged. Just what is it we want ? I think that varies with the individual. Is it justice we want, or retribution ? What is retribution ? The dictionary says it is, " retributive Justice, a theory of Justice that considers propionate punishment an acceptable response to crime. " That implies an eye for an eye does it not ? An equal exchange of injury. Again Justice is equality in that theory.
I do think we often confuse Justice with Vengeance. Justice is aimed only at the wrong and is not a personal thing. Justice seeks an equality. Vengeance however is quite personal and demands quite a bit more. The only thing the two have in common is the only way they can be satisfied is by the injured. The one who is wronged must be satisfied.
I am left with deciding just what is justice ? Is equality the sole measure of justice ? As long as I am left dissatisfied justice has not been served. That leaves another question, can justice be achieved ? It would appear that justice is a personal decision. Justice can be administered, but not guaranteed. Just as a physician administers a healing process the results may be less than satisfactory.
Can justice be obtained for the wrongs of the past ? Not if justice is solely based upon equality. If would seem to me a measure of forgiveness, from the injured party, is necessary for the complete application of justice to be successful. A complete redress of the wrong requires the cooperation of both parties. The one that committed the wrong must be willing to accept responsibility for their actions and the injured must be willing to extend a measure of forgiveness. Those are the components of justice.
I would then conclude that Justice is a cooperative venture. Justice can be offered, but relies solely on being received. Justice is only achieved when a balance has been reached. A propionate exchange between the wrongdoer and the wronged.
Justice, it would seem to me, means equality. To be treated in an equal fashion under the law, or in society. Justice is served when the victim has been recognized to be equal. I think that is what is meant in the Pledge of Allegiance when we say, with Liberty and Justice for all. Liberty being freedom and justice meaning we are all equal under the law.
We seek justice ( equality ) when we have been wronged. Just what is it we want ? I think that varies with the individual. Is it justice we want, or retribution ? What is retribution ? The dictionary says it is, " retributive Justice, a theory of Justice that considers propionate punishment an acceptable response to crime. " That implies an eye for an eye does it not ? An equal exchange of injury. Again Justice is equality in that theory.
I do think we often confuse Justice with Vengeance. Justice is aimed only at the wrong and is not a personal thing. Justice seeks an equality. Vengeance however is quite personal and demands quite a bit more. The only thing the two have in common is the only way they can be satisfied is by the injured. The one who is wronged must be satisfied.
I am left with deciding just what is justice ? Is equality the sole measure of justice ? As long as I am left dissatisfied justice has not been served. That leaves another question, can justice be achieved ? It would appear that justice is a personal decision. Justice can be administered, but not guaranteed. Just as a physician administers a healing process the results may be less than satisfactory.
Can justice be obtained for the wrongs of the past ? Not if justice is solely based upon equality. If would seem to me a measure of forgiveness, from the injured party, is necessary for the complete application of justice to be successful. A complete redress of the wrong requires the cooperation of both parties. The one that committed the wrong must be willing to accept responsibility for their actions and the injured must be willing to extend a measure of forgiveness. Those are the components of justice.
I would then conclude that Justice is a cooperative venture. Justice can be offered, but relies solely on being received. Justice is only achieved when a balance has been reached. A propionate exchange between the wrongdoer and the wronged.
No comments:
Post a Comment