NationStates Jolt Archive

That is all, just a short question. Be as broad or as specific as you please.

I will stick around to ask further questions and to play devil's advocate.

What is justice? Revenge.

What is justice? Revenge.

Explain.

Explain.
In a sense it is revenge because you violated a law and you are being punished for that unfavorable action.

In a sense it is revenge because you violated a law and you are being punished for that unfavorable action.

Well said


"You should never let your sense of morals stop you from doing what is right."
-Isaac Asimov

justice:

Main Entry: jus·tice

Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&s

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English & Old French; Old English justice, from Old French justice, from Latin justitia, from justus

1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b : JUDGE c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity

2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS c : the quality of conforming to law

3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : CORRECTNESS

In a sense it is revenge because you violated a law and you are being punished for that unfavorable action.

That's not called revenge. That is called consequence.

Justice is when consequence balances out action.

I think that justice, as far as I can tell, is that each person experiences the consequences appropriate to their actions. If I grow a vegetable, and someone comes over and smacks me and steals my vegetable, they deserve to be punished for taking my vegetable and I deserve to get my vegetable back so I can eat it, plus maybe one of his vegetables since he smacked me and suchlike.

In short, justice is the good living good lives as a result of their good actions, and evil people not being allowed to profit from their evil.

As an aside, I think I would have been a traveling warrior in earlier times. I love the idea of defending those who can't defend themselves.

Then again, not sure how intimidating a 5'7" young woman dragging a sword as big as she is would be.

This is an EXTREMELY complicated question, that I regrettably can't get into now due to work and sleep. However, justice and revenge aren't the same thing:

Justice, in the criminal/legal/personal sense it's being used here, refers to fair response in exchange for actions taken. Revenge is inherently self-satisfying; it makes one person feel better about past events by doing an event in the present. It isn't an inherently fair action - I could feel that the only way I'll get revenge on the guy that stole my dollar is by killing him. Would you say that's justice? Because I wouldn't.

In a sense it is revenge because you violated a law and you are being punished for that unfavorable action.

Do you consider justice to be a rectifying action, and is what you are describing a rectifying action?

Justice doesn't exist, it is merely a human concept, to some it is a way of making sure that those who did wrong won't do it again while others see justice as revenge, our perception of justice can change direction just as easily as the wind

Justice always exists, whether human beings recognize it or not. It springs from natural law between rational creatures.

I think that justice, as far as I can tell, is that each person experiences the consequences appropriate to their actions. If I grow a vegetable, and someone comes over and smacks me and steals my vegetable, they deserve to be punished for taking my vegetable and I deserve to get my vegetable back so I can eat it, plus maybe one of his vegetables since he smacked me and suchlike.

But why does that constitute justice. Is justice making sure people "get what they deserve?"

Yes and no. It's not always easy to see exactly what will balance the scales when wrong is done. If justice was easy, 5000+ years of human thought would have figured it out by now. But if nothing else, I think we have a sense of where we ought to be going, if not how to get there.

In a very, very basic sense, yes, justice is people "getting what they deserve." The problems arise when various people with their different values try to decide just what someone deserves.

"When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the multitude, in no respect better than any other in it. If he would act so as that the impartial spectator may enter into the principles of his conduct, which is what of all things he has the greatest desire to do, he must upon this, as upon all other occasions, humble the arrogance of his self-love, and bring it down to something which other men can go along with. They indulge it so far as to allow him to be more anxious about, and to pursue with more earnest assiduity, his own happiness than that of any other person. Thus far, whenever they place themselves in his situation, they will readily go along with him. In the race for wealth, and honours, and preferments, he may run as hard as he can, and strain every nerve and every muscle, in order to outstrip all his competitors. But if he should justle, or throw down any of them, the indulgence of the spectators is entirely at an end. It is a violation of fair play, which they cannot admit of. This man is to them, in every respect, as good as he: they do not enter into that self-love, by which he prefers himself so much to this other, and cannot go along with the motive from which he hurt him. They readily, therefore sympathize with the natural resentment of the injured, and the offender becomes the object of their hatred and indignation. He is sensible that he becomes so, and feels that those sentiments are ready to burst out from all sides against him." -- Adam Smith, Part II, Section II, Chapter II, The Theory of Moral Sentiments

Our sense of justice rises from our natural tendency to see ourselves in the position of the injured and thus feel the injury ourselves. As a result, we "sympathize with the natural resentment of the injured," making the offender "the object of [our] hatred and indignation."

How about this, should punishment be considered a form of justice? You say that justice is people getting what they deserve, but what makes you say that the criminal deserves anything? It is obvious that, due to your work of raising the vegetable, you are entitled to it. However, what causes the criminal to deserve punishment, and what is the benefit from punishment?

Should a criminal be punished beyond the repayment of his wrongs? What about situations where is impossible to rectify a situation? How does prison and death sentences fit into the notion of justice?

Justice always exists, whether human beings recognize it or not. It springs from natural law between rational creatures.

oh? you may wanna justify your belief there

oh? you may wanna justify your belief there

I think she means that justice, even if it is an abstract human invention, always exists within society due to the rational nature of our social interaction.

I see your point, that justice is relative to the society and the times, however its flexibility does not change its prevalence or nature.

Vittos is apparently Socrates now, eh? I wouldn't touch the wine if I were you.

Justice is difficult to define. In dealings, justice can be considered fairness and equality of rights. A simplistic example is a parent has a piece of chocolate, and two children. To split it equally between the two children(assuming no other lurking variables to affect the decision besides the existence of two children and one piece of chocolate) would be the just decision.
In crime and punishment, dealing out Justice is in general considered balancing a situation after a disbalancing act. For example, say a man kills another man. Now society and the dead man's life and family have been disbalanced. Society has lost a worker and contributor, the family has lost a father figure and a breadwinner, all(before the system kicks in) without any payment from the killer. Now a Just system would seek to rebalance the situation. Several options exist, from harming the killer, to repaying the state and the victim family through work or money, but the idea is to re-establish a balance in the situation.
The concept of Justice may be balanced more towards mercy or vengeance in a Justice system, but in general the idea of creating balance is the overriding feature, in all applications of "justice."
It's extremely complex as a concept and my interpretation is by no means the only one, or even correct for that matter.

But the ultimate aim in asking this question is not to recieve a correct answer(as ultimately it is unlikely that one exists), but to get people into that kind of deep thinking, a stimulating exercise if I may say so.

I think she means that justice, even if it is an abstract human invention, always exists within society due to the rational nature of our social interaction.

I believe you two are right and wrong, justice stems from a natural human thirst for revenge and a humans logic, but that is all, justice can be moulded and can change therefore it isn't real, plus if there was a natural law of justice then surely more "good" people would get what they deserve

However, what causes the criminal to deserve punishment, and what is the benefit from punishment?


"Society, however, cannot subsist among those who are at all times ready to hurt and injure one another. The moment that injury begins, the moment that mutual resentment and animosity take place, all the bands of it are broken asunder, and the different members of which it consisted, are, as it were, dissipated and scattered abroad by the violence and opposition of their discordant affections. ...the prevalence of injustice must utterly destroy it. ...If [justice] is removed, the great, the immense fabric of human society, that fabric which, to raise and support, seems, in this world, if I may say so, to have been the peculiar and darling care of nature, must in a moment crumble into atoms. In order to enforce the observation of justice, therefore, nature has implanted in the human breast that consciousness for ill desert, those terrors of merited punishment, which attend upon its violation, as the great safeguards of the association of mankind, to protect the weak, to curb the violent, and to chastise the guilty. Men, though naturally sympathetic, feel so little for an another, withwhom they have no particular connection, in comparison of what they feel for themselves; the misery of one, who is merely their fellow-creature, is of so little importance to them in comparison even of a small convienency of their own; they have it so much in their power to hurt him, and may have so many temptation to do so, that if this principle did not stand up within them in his defence, and overawe them into a respect for his innocence, they would like wild beasts, be at all times ready to fly upon him; and a man would enter an assembly of men as he enters a den of lions." -- Adam Smith, Part II, Section II, Chapter III, The Theory of Moral Sentiments

Vittos is apparently Socrates now, eh? I wouldn't touch the wine if I were you.

That's Mr. Ordination to you, bud.

Justice is difficult to define. In dealings, justice can be considered fairness and equality of rights. A simplistic example is a parent has a piece of chocolate, and two children. To split it equally between the two children(assuming no other lurking variables to affect the decision besides the existence of two children and one piece of chocolate) would be the just decision.

To nitpick, wouldn't justice in this situation be whatever split the parent deems acceptable. Why would it be unjust for her to split the chocolate as he/she sees fit.

I am not sure if that is has much correlation to the nature of justice in general, but I am feeling argumentative.

In crime and punishment, dealing out Justice is in general considered balancing a situation after a disbalancing act. For example, say a man kills another man. Now society and the dead man's life and family have been disbalanced. Society has lost a worker and contributor, the family has lost a father figure and a breadwinner, all(before the system kicks in) without any payment from the killer. Now a Just system would seek to rebalance the situation. Several options exist, from harming the killer, to repaying the state and the victim family through work or money, but the idea is to re-establish a balance in the situation.

Is harming the killer actually justice?

The concept of Justice may be balanced more towards mercy or vengeance in a Justice system, but in general the idea of creating balance is the overriding feature, in all applications of "justice."

Should our justice system be based on creating a balance, or should it be based on preventing an imbalance?

It's extremely complex as a concept and my interpretation is by no means the only one, or even correct for that matter.

But the ultimate aim in asking this question is not to recieve a correct answer(as ultimately it is unlikely that one exists), but to get people into that kind of deep thinking, a stimulating exercise if I may say so.

I am trying to use the brains of NS to do my thinking for me. I am doing a little steering, and you guys should provide some momentum.

I believe you two are right and wrong, justice stems from a natural human thirst for revenge and a humans logic, but that is all, justice can be moulded and can change therefore it isn't real, plus if there was a natural law of justice then surely more "good" people would get what they deserve

1. I agree that justice is not a natural concept, but I am quite sure that it is a valid social one.

2. There are many things, tangible and otherwise, that can be molded there are no less real.

3. You assume "a natural human thirst for revenge." What leads you to believe that there is one? And what states that justice cannot be based solely on human logic. Many will state that revenge is not a form of justice, nor can a victim adequately prescribe justice.

How about this, should punishment be considered a form of justice?

No. Reward is also a form of justice.

No. Reward is also a form of justice.

Why? In what situations should individuals be rewarded? Should they be rewarded for not committing a wrong? Should they be rewarded for having a wrong committed against them.

Convince me that rewards are acceptable, but punishment is not.

"That's Mr. Ordination to you, bud."

-Then you can refer to me by my full title - The High and Mighty Vice Vice Praetor to the Office of the Commandant-General in charge of servicing Vice President Dick Cheney, Kroisistan-san. ;)


"To nitpick, wouldn't justice in this situation be whatever split the parent deems acceptable. Why would it be unjust for her to split the chocolate as he/she sees fit."

-Not neccisarily. Would it be just, if both children had done nothing wrong, and both were hungry to the same degree and both wanted the chocolate, to give it all to child A and none to child B? In general not considered just. Remember I specified that there were no lurking variables. If one kid had done something to deserve more chocolate, or the other something not to deserve chocolate, then a different distribution would have been just. Like I said, complex.

"I am not sure if that is has much correlation to the nature of justice in general, but I am feeling argumentative."

-Perfectly acceptable.


"Is harming the killer actually justice?"

-Well this is how I see it - Imagine a balance, one side is person A, the other side represents society. They remain balanced as long as neither side commits a wrong on the other. Now if person A kills someone, they have taken from the other side of the scale(harmed society), thus unbalancing it. To rebalance it, you can either add to the lessened side, take from A and add to the other side, or take from A. Harming the killer is the taking from A option, utilized far too often if you ask me. It would be like the death penalty, or a life sentance or other lengthy prison term, or even if a nation condones it, torture. The main function of prison, torture or lethal injection is punishment. It also serves the side function of protecting society from person A, but the main rationalization for most people is the punishment, which is taking from A, which rebalances the scales, in people's and society's eye(s).

"Should our justice system be based on creating a balance, or should it be based on preventing an imbalance?"

-Well I draw a difference between the Justice system and Justice. Justice can be a state, or an application. If no one ever unbalances the society, and fairness reigns, then so does Justice. Justice is also the rebalancing act after an inbalance. The system I assume could work both ways, being either proactive(preventing unbalances) or reactive(rebalancing it), but in all states in the world it is strongly favored to the reactive. If a system could be designed that would prevent crime, then that would be maintaining balance, thus would be just.

"I am trying to use the brains of NS to do my thinking for me. I am doing a little steering, and you guys should provide some momentum."

-... leech. YOU SIR ARE NO SOCRATES!!![/self righteous yelling with traces of betrayal in voice] :D

"Society, however, cannot subsist among those who are at all times ready to hurt and injure one another. The moment that injury begins, the moment that mutual resentment and animosity take place, all the bands of it are broken asunder, and the different members of which it consisted, are, as it were, dissipated and scattered abroad by the violence and opposition of their discordant affections. ...the prevalence of injustice must utterly destroy it. ...If [justice] is removed, the great, the immense fabric of human society, that fabric which, to raise and support, seems, in this world, if I may say so, to have been the peculiar and darling care of nature, must in a moment crumble into atoms. In order to enforce the observation of justice, therefore, nature has implanted in the human breast that consciousness for ill desert, those terrors of merited punishment, which attend upon its violation, as the great safeguards of the association of mankind, to protect the weak, to curb the violent, and to chastise the guilty. Men, though naturally sympathetic, feel so little for an another, withwhom they have no particular connection, in comparison of what they feel for themselves; the misery of one, who is merely their fellow-creature, is of so little importance to them in comparison even of a small convienency of their own; they have it so much in their power to hurt him, and may have so many temptation to do so, that if this principle did not stand up within them in his defence, and overawe them into a respect for his innocence, they would like wild beasts, be at all times ready to fly upon him; and a man would enter an assembly of men as he enters a den of lions." -- Adam Smith, Part II, Section II, Chapter III, The Theory of Moral Sentiments

How does that apply towards punishment? I see it as establishing the need for justice and defining the source of it, but I don't see it as naming punishment as a tool of justice.

Justice does not exist, you cannot look at the universe and tell me that the good are rewarded and the bad punished. It is a human concept, but one in which humans MUST believe. What, then, is justice? Justice is quid pro quo; something for something, in even measures of course. Tempered by mercy, rushed by vengeance, Justice measures all things upon her scales to equal and equate everything. Vengeance demands and eye for an eye, but that does not work as vengeance leads to tyranny, nor does it take into account the circumstances of the issue at hand to decide which claim is more pressing. Mercy demands compassion, less we become tyrants or that which we presume to pronounce the doom of Justice upon. But mercy can be a weak reed as well, too light, and take too much into consideration, letting those who should not walk free walk.

In action, Justice is an ever changing, ever re-measured concept as society’s ideals and notions take shape and grow, this is proof that justice does not exist outside humanity’s need for it. If it did, this adjustment would never happen. But, we want, and need, justice if someone does steal out vegetables or commits other dastardly acts.

Not neccisarily. Would it be just, if both children had done nothing wrong, and both were hungry to the same degree and both wanted the chocolate, to give it all to child A and none to child B? In general not considered just. Remember I specified that there were no lurking variables. If one kid had done something to deserve more chocolate, or the other something not to deserve chocolate, then a different distribution would have been just. Like I said, complex.

My problem with this situation is rather specific to this situation, but, all sympathies aside, since the chocolate is in the parent's possession, wouldn't justice be allowing the parent to do as they see fit?

My point of contention may be in agreement with Thetacon. Maybe justice doesn't exist in this situation, maybe justice is however the parent wants to define it.

Well this is how I see it - Imagine a balance, one side is person A, the other side represents society. They remain balanced as long as neither side commits a wrong on the other. Now if person A kills someone, they have taken from the other side of the scale(harmed society), thus unbalancing it. To rebalance it, you can either add to the lessened side, take from A and add to the other side, or take from A. Harming the killer is the taking from A option, utilized far too often if you ask me. It would be like the death penalty, or a life sentance or other lengthy prison term, or even if a nation condones it, torture. The main function of prison, torture or lethal injection is punishment. It also serves the side function of protecting society from person A, but the main rationalization for most people is the punishment, which is taking from A, which rebalances the scales, in people's and society's eye(s).

Does the balancing of society by harming another individual benefit society in any way?

If justice is a method of balancing society, and it is found that the balancing does not help either of the parties involved, should justice be scrapped?

How does that apply towards punishment? I see it as establishing the need for justice and defining the source of it, but I don't see it as naming punishment as a tool of justice.

The key is in this smaller part of that which I quoted earlier:

"In order to enforce the observation of justice, therefore, nature has implanted in the human breast that consciousness for ill desert, those terrors of merited punishment, which attend upon its violation, as the great safeguards of the association of mankind, to protect the weak, to curb the violent, and to chastise the guilty." -- Adam Smith, Part II, Section II, Chapter III, The Theory of Moral Sentiments

The "terrors of merited punishment" are used as a tool by nature, in order to encourage people to live according to justice. If I understand Smith correctly, "justice" is not "punishment," but is, rather, the sense by which we determine whether or not our behavior/actions/choices are appropriate ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9236140&postcount=15 ).

"In order to enforce the observation of justice, therefore, nature has implanted in the human breast that consciousness for ill desert, those terrors of merited punishment, which attend upon its violation, as the great safeguards of the association of mankind, to protect the weak, to curb the violent, and to chastise the guilty." -- Adam Smith, Part II, Section II, Chapter III, The Theory of Moral Sentiments

The "terrors of merited punishment" are used as a tool by nature, in order to encourage people to live according to justice. If I understand Smith correctly, "justice" is not "punishment," but is, rather, the sense by which we determine whether or not our behavior/actions/choices are appropriate.

So you interpret that, with the "terrors of merited punishment", Smith is referring to guilt, or am I mistaken and he is referring literally to a fear of retribution?

The entire argument of punishment as a tool of justice actually hinges on the meaning of the "terrors." If the "terrors" represent guilt it would mean that punishment is unnecessary, while if the "terrors" are literal, then the punishment would be necessary.

I have demonstrated to myself the danger of selecting quotes out of a large work, instead of encouraging people to go and read the entire thing, so that they can observe the proper context in which the quote is contained.

I had posted the second quote referenced from Smith ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9236232&postcount=21 ) thinking that Smith considered "punishment" vital to the integrity of society. But I was mistaken. Upon reading the chapter again, it now appears that while Smith did consider it obvious that "punishment" for violations of the "law of justice" is necessary in order to maintain the integrity of society, he also said that, while the "integrity of society" is often given in defense of punishment, it isn't the real and true reason people call for punishment. Instead, our concern is not for society, but for the individual; we call for punishment because of the very mechanism described in the first quote I posted ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9236140&postcount=15 ): we place ourselves in the victim's position, and feel part of his injury ourselves. As a result, we "sympathize" with his resentment, and call for a punishment that fits the crime. The overall effect may be the "integrity of society," but this integrity is not the original motovation.

Anyway, instead of posting more quotes, I will simply encourage everyone to get a read a copy of The Theory of Moral Sentiments instead.

Justice is the act of righting a wrong in such a way that:

1) the wrong doesn't happen again.
2) the "righting of the wrong" is just light enough that #1 occurs.

At least that is what I believe should be the purpose of the "justice system."