justice is not natural

J

jhlopes

Registered Member
"i've chopped an orange in two... two obviously different parts....to which have i been injust or unfare?....i who am to eat both of them.....

This is a little literal translation of a part of a portuguese poet that was speaking about justice and injustice... and i think it is the best example one could ask for...
The cocncept of justice and injustice lies only in human ethics and moral...it is only a human desire, it is not in nature...
How do you feel about this?
 
Well, saying "...it is only a human desire, it is not in nature" is the wrong approach or terminology. Human desire IS in nature! Change that little bit of your post and it's much more correct.

Justice is and can only be a PERSONAL decision/desire ...unless it is FORCED upon people by others. In which case, we, as a society, like to call those ideals that have been forced upon us ...laws!

Baron Max
 
Justice is a human concept developed through and by our culture and intelligence, so one must assume that it is something artificial. Of course, one could argue that desing can also be natural, bees and ants built complex facilities, that are still natural to them. So in a way, justice might be a natural thing implemented in our brains, even in our genes.

On the other hand, justice might be an invention of a group of people who thought it a good idea to force people uner their justice to make life more secure and peaceful.

take your pick, I am no historic anthropologist or socioligist, so I do not know for sure, but I doubt anyone does.
 
What is "just" depends on the set of rules to which we refer. Those rules are man-made, subject to change, aren't necessarily found elsewhere in nature, and may oppose what is found in nature. I suppose what is meant by "natural" here can be understood as subconscious; bees do what they do subconsciously (no?). Justice is very conscious for humans.
 
Justice is made to protect the weak so yes, in regards to "nature" where it's survival of the fittest, justice is unnatural. However, laws are a way of survival of the fittest. Just because the weak are now able to conquer the strong due to those laws, are they now actually weak in the first place?

Who determines who and what is strong and weak? Who determines what is natural and not? Are not humans part of nature? So aren't our laws a part of nature as well? Just because most other animals aren't privy to the amount of complicated laws as we have (laws do exist for animals, just not as many as we have), it doesn't mean we're not natural.

Our minds are so far greater than any other living thing on Earth that we know of and we have the power to learn, imagine, and invent. So obviously things are going to be different for us than primitive animals. But yeah, again, to put it shortly, we're a part of nature so why are our laws considered unnatural?

- N
 
Neildo said:
Justice is made to protect the weak
Click to expand...

Firstly, it isn't justice that you're referring to, its 'law'.
Secondly, it is not made to protect the weak. Defensive strength is not the same as offensive strength. The fact that a person has enough strength to chop you with an axe doesn't mean either that he has enough strength to withstand the same attack from you, or that you don't have enough strength to attack him in the same manner. The attacker may be as weak as the victim.
 
jhlopes said:
The cocncept of justice and injustice lies only in human ethics and moral...it is only a human desire, it is not in nature...
How do you feel about this?
Click to expand...

I see what you mean. However, I believe that there is a generalizable principle behind justice that appears throughout the cosmos. That is the principle of "wholeness" - of the endless journey of fragmentation or differentation, then re-integration into new wholes. Which is also the generalizable principle of evolution as well. Attempts at human justice are derived from this cosmic form of justice.

Now, applying this back to human affairs, when we ask "Is justice being served?," we might re-phrase as "What will make us whole?" This suggests that we focus on more "restorative" approaches to wrongdoing, rather than simply punishment, which may or may not restore wholeness.

And while I'm at it, let me add that by this standard, the death penalty can't really be thought of as justice, but revenge. It isn't even a punishment, really, because it offers no chance whatsover of the wrong-doer undergoing some kind of suffering as a way of giving birth to a restoration of wholeness. It's just "Zap, you're gone." I admit, of course, finding/creating justice in this sense that I'm talking about is not an easy thing to do. It takes wisdom to figure out real justice, even in little everyday situations sometimes.
 
Neildo said:
Justice is made to protect the weak
Click to expand...

I would say its purpose is to protect those that were treated unfairly.
The weak and the strong are both treated unfairly.
How do you define "weak"?
 
Onefinity said:
...when we ask "Is justice being served?," we might re-phrase as "What will make us whole?" This suggests that we focus on more "restorative" approaches to wrongdoing, rather than simply punishment, which may or may not restore wholeness.
Click to expand...

Well, you've opened up a big can of worms and it seems that you can't even see it.

First, who is "we"? Is that a single group of humans on some isolated island or is it your idea that it's "all humans"? Both of those may well be different and have differing views on "justice".

Second, what is "wrong-doing"? Ditto above. For some, hacking off the hand of a thief is "justice" ....for others, that's barbaric and, worse, it's "IN-justice".

Third, what is "punishment"? See above.

"Wholeness"? Hmmm? I think that goes back to your ideal of "we". (Perhaps you should see the tread on "What is Society" ...it might give you some more things to consider. "Wholeness"? Is that some ideal that can never be achieved whereby all humans love all other humans equally????? ..LOL!

Hate in human societies and human interaction is, in my opinion, innate. I know many avid humanists who will yell racist obscentities at drivers who cut them off or cause some minor traffic incident ...his INNATE hatred is uncovered in all of it's ugliness and honesty.

And on your idea of the death penalty; I have my own thoughts ....and that is ...Why does any society/tribe/group of people NEED with someone who's committed a violent/deadly crime? Why not just get rid of them?

Baron Max
 
Baron, the questions you raise are all interesting sociological and anthropological questions that have been explored in great depth, and can continue to be so. However, those details don't really change the fact that there is a core pursuit in all things, and in all of what we call human "justice," and that core pursuit is the restoration of wholeness. In any example you can cite where x happened and then y happened as a result, or z was sought to happen, it can all be described using a model of restoration of wholeness.
 
Onefinity said:
...and that core pursuit is the restoration of wholeness.
Click to expand...

What does that mean? "Wholeness" of what? Of whom?

Does it also apply to all animals or just humans? And if not, why not?

I think just saying something like "pursuit of wholeness" is not enough ....you have to say what the fuck that means. And, equally important, to whom does it mean that.

Baron Max
 
§outh§tar said:
You didn't answer the question.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
I don't think it the the place for any ONE person TO answer the questions.
When I said that was the point of a justice system, I meant it is (or I guess, should be) the point of a justice system to answer those questions.
 
one_raven said:
Exactly.
I don't think it the the place for any ONE person TO answer the questions.
When I said that was the point of a justice system, I meant it is (or I guess, should be) the point of a justice system to answer those questions.
Click to expand...

We'll go down the hole then: who decides what the justice system is? Every person in the group, the 'majority'?
 
Justice has always been dictated by the one holding the biggest gun! Sure that's oversimplification, but it's nevertheless true ....and has been since the beginning of human history.

And just so you know, that same principle would apply, for example, in even an intellectual discussion ....the person with the best argument is likely to win that argument. See? He holds the biggest "gun".

A group of people can sit around and discuss justice and even come to some conclusions, but can they institute those conclusions? ...in the face of another group who holds the large guns? No, not likely. But even if they could, via civil war or a major governmentatl overthrow, then wouldn't they, then, hold the biggest guns?

Baron Max
 
I think that the analogy of arguments being akin to guns is tenous at best, if not an unsustainable position. Intellectual force and the threat of physical force are different fields altogether; surely you can't mean that when two academics debate the winner wins because his mind contains "a bigger gun"? I might just as easily extend your comparison to the field of baking, in which of two rival bakers the winner may be the one with the best bread - the "bigger gun".

As a point of interest, do you consider "might makes right" which you seem to believe drives justice as just a fact of life, or as desirable? (without jumping to conclusion, from other posts of yours suggesting that communities can and should dispose of criminals, I would suggest that this is something you do in fact advocate. Surely this leads to totalitarianism, and situations such as Nazi Germany - I know it's an overused analogy- whereby a community lead by the mightiest determines what is right, such as persecution, then follows it, as it sets its own standards.

N.B In reply to your last point, Gandhi for example never held the largest guns against the British, yet still won (unless you plan to also include civil resistance as yet another form of gun) Your second point about the victorious party then holding the biggest guns is of no consequence to your argument and so is spurious; the fact remains that a smaller unarmed group can be victorious over an armed group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top