Is justice just?

[CK the Fat]

I tribute these ideas to a Greek philosopher (can't recall which one atm, I'll go check) and would like to ask these questions:

1. What is justice?
2. Who can justly administer justice?
3. Is administering justice unjust, because justice means harming the unjust, which itself if unjust?

Here are my personal responses:
1. A system that tries to make life "fair" for everyone (though defining exactly what "fair" means is a whole new topic itself)
2. I don't know.
3. Yes, but how can you stop injustice without administering injustice?

 

[The Big Lovin']

1. Equal punishment to a crime
2. Anyone who's reasons are legit.
3. No. Justice is all about equality. Crime has consquences. These consquences are meant to cause harm either physically or mentally as a punishment due to thier crimes.

I think you are making this way more complicated than it is =/

 

[Johnny Stooge]

1. What is justice?

Something seeked to incur a fairness and set things right. All parties taken into account.

2. Who can justly administer justice?

No one is perfect. But we have the courts to do this job, like it or not. You may say 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone', but when that stone needs to be cast to bring about this fairness, it's best off left to the people appointed to the position because they are there for a reason.

3. Is administering justice unjust, because justice means harming the unjust, which itself if unjust?

No. Those that have caused injustice do not deserve the liberty of hiding behind such an excuse. When a system is in place with rules and regulations they must be followed or else punished. The justice is that no one is above the law. eg. The person administering the justice can brought about for their own crimes, no matter their service.

 

[Darky Dee]

I tribute these ideas to a Greek philosopher (can't recall which one atm, I'll go check) and would like to ask these questions:

Plato

1. What is justice?

justice
-noun
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.

Thirteeen other defenitions can be found here.

2. Who can justly administer justice?

Professional officials who are presumed to have a higher level of thinking in accordance to Malsow's theoretic laws of thinking.

3. Is administering justice unjust, because justice means harming the unjust, which itself if unjust?

Depends on what level of punishment that you consider harmful. Crime and punishment, they brought it upon themselves.

And my answer is no.
----------------------------

Extra curricular material:

• Wisdom
• Courage
• Moderation
• Justice

Justice is described by Plato to be the founding and preserving virtue because only once someone understands justice can he or she gain the other three virtues, and once someone possesses all four virtues it is justice that keeps it all together.

~Answer solved.

 

[CK the Fat]

"I think you are making this way more complicated than it is =/"

Perhaps you just don't like a good debate. This question has been around over two millenium; obviously it isn't that simple.

"No. Justice is all about equality. Crime has consquences. These consquences are meant to cause harm either physically or mentally as a punishment due to thier crimes."

Correct, but what happens when consequence is unequal to the crime committed? Is not the excessive consequence

"No. Those that have caused injustice do not deserve the liberty of hiding behind such an excuse. When a system is in place with rules and regulations they must be followed or else punished."

Almost everyone agrees that there should be a justice system. The aim of the question is not to try and cast it away, but rather examine the injustness of justice itself.

 

[The Big Lovin']

"
Perhaps you just don't like a good debate. This question has been around over two millenium; obviously it isn't that simple.

Of course it could. And of course I like a good debate. If I didn't, I wouldn't be in here.

Correct, but what happens when consequence is unequal to the crime committed? Is not the excessive consequence

Then let justice be served to them as well. But as you said, "fairness" is another topic.

Almost everyone agrees that there should be a justice system. The aim of the question is not to try and cast it away, but rather examine the injustness of justice itself.

What is unjust about justice, though?

 

[CK the Fat]

"What is unjust about justice, though?"

If wrongdoing is wrong, how is wrongdoing against a wrongdoer just?

 

[snowdog]

Damn. I was gonna say that Plato said this, but Darky Dee beat me to it. Lol.

 

[Johnny Stooge]

"What is unjust about justice, though?"

If wrongdoing is wrong, how is wrongdoing against a wrongdoer just?

Justice is used to set things right. To make things equal again. You cannot do wrong against a wrongdoer. Since "wronging" them is making things right.
When there is injustice, the wrongdoer forfeits their rights until justice is achieved again.

The injustice would to just leave things be. The justice is that it applies to everyone.

 

[CK the Fat]

To make things equal, though, wouldn't the only fitting punishment be the victim committing an equal offense against the commiter? If it were anyone other than the victim then obviously there must be some misplaced justice.

 

[The Big Lovin']

If wrongdoing is wrong, how is wrongdoing against a wrongdoer just?

Wrongdoing =/= Justice. Punishment isn't a wrong doing...up untill a point. But once it crosses that point, then its a wrong doing because its an abuse of power.

 

[Phoenix]

3. Is administering justice unjust, because justice means harming the unjust, which itself if unjust?

Harming the unjust is unjust itself how?

 

[Johnny Stooge]

To make things equal, though, wouldn't the only fitting punishment be the victim committing an equal offense against the commiter? If it were anyone other than the victim then obviously there must be some misplaced justice.

No, punishment just has to be sought against the wrongdoer.
And then this is where the system is brought in to be impartial. If the victim decided upon the punishment, there would be a bias. Revenge and justice are two differant things.

 

[CK the Fat]

"Harming the unjust is unjust itself how?"

Because wrongdoing is unjust, and doing wrongdoing even against an unjust man is itself unjust since it is not perfect representation of the crime against the commiter, restoring equality to the victim.

 

[Darky Dee]

What are you trying to justify? To let the criminals off the handle because punishment is a crime?

Rights end where other's start. I would expect some form of punishment to be dealt when they break a law.

Now if we were discussing the right type of punishments for various crimes, that is a different story.

 

[CK the Fat]

"What are you trying to justify? To let the criminals off the handle because punishment is a crime?"

Again, no. This is an examination of justice, not the promotion of its abolishment.

"Now if we were discussing the right type of punishments for various crimes, that is a different story."

But can only the "right" punishment be administered to a crime, or else it becomes unjust?

 

[Darky Dee]

The punishment needs to fit the crime, you shouldn't sentence a misdemeanor to fifty years in prison, because he stole your grandmother's ashes and poured them at the city dump.

So yes, it would become unjust.

 

[CK the Fat]

So is there any way for humans to pefectly balance crime and punishment? Does that mean anything more or less makes the administration of justice unjust?

 

[Darky Dee]

Once you reach a balanced state of moderation and comprimise, you have the ability to administer punishments that are perfect, although not all all officials are not as noteworthy of others in terms of all fairness.

So to answer your question, no it doesn't make the entire administration unjust. You shouldn't smite the ones who are not at fault, that in itself is unjust to wrongfully accuse, and yes, there is a way to perfectly balance crime and punishment.

 

[Phoenix]

Because wrongdoing is unjust, and doing wrongdoing even against an unjust man is itself unjust since it is not perfect representation of the crime against the commiter, restoring equality to the victim.

How is it wrongdoing is you're doing it to the lawbreaker?