Justice?

[wesmorris]

Wesmorris:

How is this not justice?

I don't understand how you could as this after you yourself noted that justice is "civilized revenge". What I described is not revenge, so it's not justice.

How is justice a "vindictive notion"? And in what way is it "based on cruelty"?

Revenge is an act of cruelty. Whether or not it is "deserved" is an other topic entirely. Payback bourne of cruelty is vindictiveness.

Moreover, why should someone not be cruel when they have been treated cruely?

I'm not saying it won't or shouldn't ever happen, but that it is not a desirable thing.. as cruelty is poison to the mind, IMO.

All actions have an equal and opposite reaction, so it stands to reason that one ought to employ said maxim towards one's retaliation towards being treated illy.

You're applying the third law to thought now? Do you think that's really valid?

You seem to have this sense of presumption of something greater, which you haven't truly pointed out is necessary.

Yes, I have. Justice is "righting wrongs" which as I've clearly explained... can't really be done. All that can really be done is possibly compensation and improvement of one's game, and acceptance that that past isn't real.

Why must we consider justice something sublime and wonderful apart from the laws and such?

Isn't justice a romantic notion of idealism? Doing the impossible, righting wrongs that can't actually be righted due to the arrow of time?

How is it "idealistic"?

As explained above.

WHat makes justice the act of "prevention and safety"?

Nothing, that's what I'm saying. Justice is a crock.

Why is it necessary to speak of a God as regards justice?

In that vein, I think I understand why it's a popular notion. I think it's necessary to invoke fantasy to justify fantasy in this case.

 

[wesmorris]

Heal the 'perp'.

Realistically, I think this is generally implausible but would be preferable if it were.

Healing 'misfits' hasn't been a 'priority, eh? It's easier to lock em away or kill them.

Easier indeed, as generally speaking (grossly general) a "perp's" mental construct is jacked to the point of presenting a looming danger to society, and there is no known method as of yet that can dejackificate a perp's mental fuckedupedness. Not that it's impossible in all cases, but that ultimately only x resources can be applied toward this end. Given that there is no assurance that current methods can have any positive gain in most cases, locking them up or killing them unfortunately, is the best society has to offer in a reasonable manner.

Perhaps we havent the 'health' to share? Perhaps money spent on SUVs takes priority to that spent on finding methods to 'heal' and 're-educate' in a compassionate manner?

It's not really our place to determine how individuals manage their personal wealth is it? Certainly we may suggest, but IMO, judging them for their choices is as shallow as the choices that are criticized, as there is no way to fully comprehend the circumstance percieved by the invidual you're criticizing.

Perhaps our general lack of real compassion is why we go the ugly route?

I don't think so, I think people would generally rather do as you suggest, but the option simply isn't economically reasonable at this juncture.

Isolate with compassion.

Agreed for the most part.

If all else fails, isolating the 'perp' from his communal prey is another, less desirable 'solution'. It bespeaks a certain 'impotence' on the part of society, an inability to make contact on any but superficial levels.

Agreed, unfortunately I think at this time this is the best society has to offer - or things would be different.

Isolation can be accomplished with compassion, though, a 'virtue', rather than 'vengence', a ... uh.. 'non-virtue'.

I don't think compassion is necessary but it is preferable. Cool indifference with regard to averting future issues is imperative... IMO.

 

[Prince_James]

Wesmorris:

I don't understand how you could as this after you yourself noted that justice is "civilized revenge". What I described is not revenge, so it's not justice.

You know, I think we ought to start with some definitions. We are both using different sets of terminologies which are, in manyways, confusing one another it would seem. Shall we go baout describing a common lexicon?

Revenge is an act of cruelty. Whether or not it is "deserved" is an other topic entirely. Payback bourne of cruelty is vindictiveness.

Cruelty implies an excess of force. Justice need not excessively deal with the problem by doing something such as that. Moreover, one need not have a justice based on force at all, even.

I'm not saying it won't or shouldn't ever happen, but that it is not a desirable thing.. as cruelty is poison to the mind, IMO.

Why would you affirm this?

You're applying the third law to thought now? Do you think that's really valid?

In general, yes. If consequences make the natural world move so smoothly, whyever would they cease to work on the mental/human level? In fact, it would even help the "golden rule" work very well.

Yes, I have. Justice is "righting wrongs" which as I've clearly explained... can't really be done. All that can really be done is possibly compensation and improvement of one's game, and acceptance that that past isn't real.

Can not the act of compensation be considered a righting of wrongs? When one makes a mistake with a pencil, does not erasing it serve to mitigate all damage? Does not such return to the state of the norm - or even better, as the true thing can be imposed upon the paper and not the mistake - serve to right the prior wrong?

Isn't justice a romantic notion of idealism? Doing the impossible, righting wrongs that can't actually be righted due to the arrow of time?

Only if we buy into an ill-formed concept held by some, but not all, of people. Thomas Hobbes, for instance, never minced words about what exactly justice was: The laws of the state.

In that vein, I think I understand why it's a popular notion. I think it's necessary to invoke fantasy to justify fantasy in this case.

Well actually, justice works far better without a God. The world is obviously not just - it isf illed with evil and victimization and all sorts of nasty things - and thus it only serves to refute reality by saying there is justice outside of human intervention.

 

[nameless]

Yup, Wes, thats what I thought you'd think cause thats what I meant! Whats with the 'defender' stuff? You got a fan club here?

I realize that besmirching the wee smiley folk is politically incorrect, but, to me, they signify what is mediocre, boring, non-creative, conventionally blase', and just plain goddamned evil! in this oh so canned culture that strives tirelessly for mediocrity. Words can be much more effective and illustrative and precise than a canned smiley face! If one has the words, of course.
If not, smiling is never a bad idea!

 

[nameless]

Realistically, I think this is generally implausible but would be preferable if it were.

Healing might be more plausible if the criminal injustice INDUSTRY werent as large and all pervasive as it is. Unfortunately, "a country's 'humanity' is seen in the way that it treats its poor and it's prisoners." If people were a priority and not just a 'catchphrase' it would be less 'implausible'. Just tossing out an 'evolved' alternative to 'jungle' behavior.

Easier indeed, as generally speaking (grossly general) a "perp's" mental construct is jacked to the point of presenting a looming danger to society, and there is no known method as of yet that can dejackificate a perp's mental fuckedupedness.

Those that cannot be 're-educated and or healed' are removed from society. Stick em on an island with whatever thay need to begin a decent life. It's up to them after that. Let em kill each other if thats what they want to do..

Not that it's impossible in all cases, but that ultimately only x resources can be applied toward this end.

We have all the resources we need if it were a moral priority. The gov't reflects the sick hearts of the masses...

Given that there is no assurance that current methods can have any positive gain in most cases, locking them up or killing them unfortunately, is the best society has to offer in a reasonable manner.

If we allotted as much $ toward dealing with these people as toward better bombs (The cost of one day of our war could buy 30 meals for 100% of the worlds hungry children... Priorities..) You are right, though. The BEST that our vengeful, hateful, violent, intolerant, authoritarian, semi-literate society has to offer in a reasonable manner. Maybe in 1,000 years? 10,000?

It's not really our place to determine how individuals manage their personal wealth is it? Certainly we may suggest, but IMO, judging them for their choices is as shallow as the choices that are criticized, as there is no way to fully comprehend the circumstance percieved by the invidual you're criticizing.

The metaphor is about priorities. (And saying that people who drive an SUV without a real need and use for all that car are ignorant and selfish is not a judgement but an observation. They destroy everyone's environment, not just their own!) Dads (too many) out there spend more time with their car than their kids! Then wonder what happened when junior is busted for carjacking! Then again, I've seen some of their kids. Yes, it was a sweeping generalization (like everyone knows that there is an inverse proportional relationship between penis size and car size.. *__- ) but the point was understood, I'm sure.

I don't think so, I think people would generally rather do as you suggest, but the option simply isn't economically reasonable at this juncture.

Priorities again... Economically feasable? Jailers lose jobs? Prison builders? Masons? Ironmen? Electricians? Painters? Judges? Lawyers? Bailiffs? Cops? Clerks? The list is nigh unto endless of the profit from 'staying the course'. The masses are emotionally propagandized to go along with anything... And the status quo remains.. And the rich get richer and those sweaty Chinese kids keep Walmart afloat. Short term profit is the bottom line here. Not what is of profit for 'humanity'. One would need vision beyond the end of one's nose to have sufficient perspective to truly be able to determine long term 'economic feasibility'. Most all children will take the offered 'one' cookie now instead of the choice of receiving five cookies in three minutes. Immediate gratification. Thats what its about, eh? Is (first world?) 'mankind' generally bustling about with the emotional maturity of a two year old?

I don't think compassion is necessary but it is preferable. Cool indifference with regard to averting future issues is imperative... IMO.

Compassion is never 'necessary'. Neither 'caring' about others 'rights'. Neither is/are any of the accepted 'human virtues'. 'Necessary' is baseline/foundational; the structure built upon it can be an eyesore or a song unto the heavens. Most, I'm afraid, wouldn't know the difference (as evidenced by the priorities of the 'system' as it is).
Would a cockroach know the difference?

 

[wesmorris]

Healing might be more plausible if the criminal injustice INDUSTRY werent as large and all pervasive as it is. Unfortunately, "a country's 'humanity' is seen in the way that it treats its poor and it's prisoners." If people were a priority and not just a 'catchphrase' it would be less 'implausible'. Just tossing out an 'evolved' alternative to 'jungle' behavior.

Well, obviously "if" is irrelevant. People are what they are. Honestly I'm quite impressed that we're as far removed from "jungle behavior" as we are as a whole.

Oh, IF wouldn't be irrelevant if you can provide a solution, a flawless one that would have no unintended consequences that might backfire on you, that would change what is into what you say should be. You can't though, so that's why it will remain irrelevant.

Those that cannot be 're-educated and or healed' are removed from society.

Just saying that at the moment, it's difficult to know "who can be healed", "what healed really means" and "how to heal exactly"... let alone verfication of any of that stuff.

Stick em on an island with whatever thay need to begin a decent life. It's up to them after that. Let em kill each other if thats what they want to do..

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. If not, then I disagree in general. Given that the conviction system isn't anywhere close to perfect, we'd certainly be putting numerous innocents to death in such a system - yes even more than we do now. Further, given that kind of freedom they could form a threat to "the restuvus". The island thingy seems unwise to me, but as you wish.

We have all the resources we need if it were a moral priority.

IMO, this is an idealistic, naive notion - as any resources put toward this end are taken from others. Just because you don't value the other ends they might be taken from, does not indicate that they are not imperative to the over-all stability of society.

The gov't reflects the sick hearts of the masses...

"the sick hearts of the masses" eh? So you've judged them as "sick" eh? Is the cheetah sick for killing a gazelle? Is the fly sick for swarming on shit? People do what they can. I would think you of all people would be more understanding.

If we allotted as much $ toward dealing with these people as toward better bombs (The cost of one day of our war could buy 30 meals for 100% of the worlds hungry children... Priorities..) You are right, though.

But as you should be aware, IF in terms of what people value - is at this time, entirely irrelevant. You're right about the cost blah blah, but that doesn't translate into the reality of trying to take that money and perform the task you describe. Honestly, I'm quite sure there are PLENTY of resources and ALL the aid necessary to ensure every human eats, but it doesn't happen. IMO, it's far too simplistic and well - naive to say "because of SUVs and WAR" blah blah, as that's just not quite true. The reality is that logitistically, there's simply no means to get it done. For every thousand pounds of food you send to a starving country, the strong on the recieving end take it for themselves and create a power base, trading it for weapons, money... whatever. There simply aren't enough people and resources to overcome all that, as it's generally imbedded in the culture. If you really went to town and tried to get it done right, your own people would starve because of the massive resources required to overcome the cultural effects, which IMO... probably can't really be overcome. Bah, anyway.. there's more to it.

The BEST that our vengeful, hateful, violent, intolerant, authoritarian, semi-literate society has to offer in a reasonable manner. Maybe in 1,000 years? 10,000?

I don't see how this negativity is a fair representation of society, unless you are willing to also contend as to the positive, the love, beauty, selflessness, dedication, tolerant, blah blah, of which there is plenty in the world. Honestly I think soceity in general is as good as it can be at the moment, and I'm impressed that we're not killing each other at a more rapid pace. I presume the anthropic principle as I interpret it, which is this: The world must be as it is because that's the only way it can be because it's the culmination of the moments that preceded it and you can't change those moments.

The metaphor is about priorities. (And saying that people who drive an SUV without a real need and use for all that car are ignorant and selfish is not a judgement but an observation.

Everyone is selfish. We are both being selfish in presenting our perspectives.. in seeking comprehension. Why is our selfishness better than theirs? Who are we to say what they need? Have you ever driven an SUV? What about all the people who drive old, crappy gas gusslers because they can't afford anything else? Are they selfish?

They destroy everyone's environment, not just their own!) Dads (too many) out there spend more time with their car than their kids! Then wonder what happened when junior is busted for carjacking! Then again, I've seen some of their kids. Yes, it was a sweeping generalization (like everyone knows that there is an inverse proportional relationship between penis size and car size.. *__- ) but the point was understood, I'm sure.

You sound like an elitist to me.

Priorities again... Economically feasable? Jailers lose jobs? Prison builders? Masons? Ironmen? Electricians? Painters? Judges? Lawyers? Bailiffs? Cops? Clerks? The list is nigh unto endless of the profit from 'staying the course'.

You apparently don't take their concerns seriously. They probably do. It's kind of disgusting to me that you call what they do "profit" when they see it as "surviving". It reeks of snobbery and "better than thou" asshattery. You are SHIT just like the rest of us man. We're also all quite beautiful, it just depends on when you catch us and if you get our good side.

The masses are emotionally propagandized to go along with anything... And the status quo remains.. And the rich get richer and those sweaty Chinese kids keep Walmart afloat.

IMO, this is a disrespectful, egotistical, angry rant. It happens.

Short term profit is the bottom line here.

Uhm... okay. If you can't pay the bills TODAY, what happens? Why do you think short term profits are the most important? Return on investment is imperative, profit isn't necessarily as important... just have to deal with what's gotta be paid TODAY.. it's perfectly understandable that "short term profit is the bottom line" over all. If I give you a thousand squid that I spent 10 days collecting to ensure I'd have food for the month, and you destroy them all and tell me to fuck off, well... shouldn't ... oh never mind. I don't have time to take this conversation all the way.

Not what is of profit for 'humanity'. One would need vision beyond the end of one's nose to have sufficient perspective to truly be able to determine long term 'economic feasibility'.

And who is it that has that vision? Is it YOU? Should I believe you? Are you seeing the point? It's not about you.

Most all children will take the offered 'one' cookie now instead of the choice of receiving five cookies in three minutes. Immediate gratification.

That is common sense. Who knows if you're lying about three minutes from now? I got this cookie right here, and no gaurentee that you're not bullshitting me about the five. Often children don't comprehend delayed gratification because they're not really hep to time so much as one is after having experienced it into adulthood. You judge the shit right out of this though don't you. You seem to fit it into some frame where you are smart and cool and understand how much better you are than the stupid masses. I know you don't think that consciously, but seroiusly, can you see how one might gather it from the angle you present? Maybe I'm reading you wrong.

Thats what its about, eh? Is (first world?) 'mankind' generally bustling about with the emotional maturity of a two year old?

Look back at this statement and find its flaw. It's in your expectation. You apparently idealize something... expecting something to be true which obviously isn't, so you scathe it.

Compassion is never 'necessary'. Neither 'caring' about others 'rights'. Neither is/are any of the accepted 'human virtues'. 'Necessary' is baseline/foundational; the structure built upon it can be an eyesore or a song unto the heavens. Most, I'm afraid, wouldn't know the difference (as evidenced by the priorities of the 'system' as it is).
Would a cockroach know the difference?

Perhaps you wouldnt' know the difference either. Are you so sure you would? Funny from a guy who knows nothing and has no name.

 

[nameless]

Well, obviously "if" is irrelevant.

Au contraire! Has any 'progress' not followed someone having 'vision' and saying, "What if...?" "If we took off these bumps, perhaps it will roll better?"

People are what they are.

Are you 'what you are' 20 years ago? 20 minutes ago? 20 nanoseconds ago? The only constant is change. The question is in the 'steering' of that change volitionally.

Honestly I'm quite impressed that we're as far removed from "jungle behavior" as we are as a whole.

A result of our different perspectives. I, on the other hand, am not as 'easily' impressed...

Oh, IF wouldn't be irrelevant if you can provide a solution, a flawless one that would have no unintended consequences that might backfire on you, that would change what is into what you say should be. You can't though, so that's why it will remain irrelevant.

Why would you demand this of me? It has never happened before! It is a matter of degree of 'validity' vs entrenched interests in a poor 'solution'. To you, 'if' only has validity under the conditions you would impose? Not to be entertained otherwise? I don't think so considering the anount of hypothetical 'if' thinking that you display in your writings...

Just saying that at the moment, it's difficult to know "who can be healed", "what healed really means" and "how to heal exactly"... let alone verfication of any of that stuff.

Given resources, these are mere 'details', 'logistics' that can be handled..

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. If not, then I disagree in general. Given that the conviction system isn't anywhere close to perfect, we'd certainly be putting numerous innocents to death in such a system - yes even more than we do now. Further, given that kind of freedom they could form a threat to "the restuvus". The island thingy seems unwise to me, but as you wish.

Actually, I think that I could support the concept, but it is not particularly relevent here and not worth the time. Needless to say, though, that without means to transit from island to mainland, they would be NO problem to the rest of us. No more 'innocents' victimized in 'that' system than this one. But, again, another topic, methinks. Again, when the 'direction to 'evolve' is delineated, the accomplishment thereof is just the working out of the 'details'.

IMO, this is an idealistic, naive notion - as any resources put toward this end are taken from others. Just because you don't value the other ends they might be taken from, does not indicate that they are not imperative to the over-all stability of society.

So you are saying that the Amerikan war juggernaut is imperative to the overall stability of the society as opposed to dealing with 'internal' and human 'needs' vs 'greeds'? I'd love to see you support that one sometime! Lets value the burning of fossil fuels (extremely short vision) over quality of the environment as it is so 'economically feasable' to a 'select few' piggys? Another entrenchment?

"the sick hearts of the masses" eh? So you've judged them as "sick" eh?

Wes, saying something is 'ill' is not a judgement, it is an observation. If I tell the drunken fellow that his bone is poking through his skin and might consider going to the hospital, is that a 'judgment'? I think not. If I said that people with broken bones are 'evil' or 'bad', then, yes, that would be a judgment.

Is the cheetah sick for killing a gazelle? Is the fly sick for swarming on shit? People do what they can. I would think you of all people would be more understanding.

Is the human 'sick' for swarming on shit? Might the fly be considered 'ill' for starving to death while trying to take down a gazelle for lunch? Yes, even sick people 'do what they can/must'.

But as you should be aware, IF in terms of what people value - is at this time, entirely irrelevant. You're right about the cost blah blah, but that doesn't translate into the reality of trying to take that money and perform the task you describe. Honestly, I'm quite sure there are PLENTY of resources and ALL the aid necessary to ensure every human eats, but it doesn't happen. IMO, it's far too simplistic and well - naive to say "because of SUVs and WAR" blah blah, as that's just not quite true. The reality is that logitistically, there's simply no means to get it done. For every thousand pounds of food you send to a starving country, the strong on the recieving end take it for themselves and create a power base, trading it for weapons, money... whatever. There simply aren't enough people and resources to overcome all that, as it's generally imbedded in the culture. If you really went to town and tried to get it done right, your own people would starve because of the massive resources required to overcome the cultural effects, which IMO... probably can't really be overcome. Bah, anyway.. there's more to it.

Good grief, it sure sounds like you are backing the 'status quo' no matter how or what it is, because it is already, for better or worse, in place. Yes, Wes, I am keeping my metaphores and examples extremely simple. If you want to divert the meaning behind them by pointing out their 'oversimplification' to make a point, I won't go there. You can fill in the 'blanks' with anything that you feel comfortable with, and the point remains. Can you really not find a governmentally endorsed 'wasted expenditure of funds' (wasted in the sense of benefitting society in general)?? I see a planet with 'enough for all' with the resources hogged by an elite few for selfish/greedy reasons. Sorry, I cannot support that 'status quo'. All positive change came from some visionary saying.. 'What if...?" .. other than what was the result of some 'accidental happenstance'.

I don't see how this negativity is a fair representation of society, unless you are willing to also contend as to the positive, the love, beauty, selflessness, dedication, tolerant, blah blah, of which there is plenty in the world.

I am not denying the 'positive', I would just rather remove the funding from the 'negative' and increase the 'positive'. Status quo be damned! Only the very rich and the very poor are conservatives...

I presume the anthropic principle as I interpret it, which is this: The world must be as it is because that's the only way it can be because it's the culmination of the moments that preceded it and you can't change those moments.

I can just hear those words before the Wright bros took to the air, before the 'Enlightenment', before anesthesia, and on ad infinitum! The 'world' is different every moment, can you not see this? Cause and effect are obsolete and irrelevent. No one ever worked with stem cells before, you should just accept your diabetes and Parkinsons and Alzheimer's.. Someone, somewhere, said, "What if...?", and everything 'changes' for what is generally considered 'the better common good'.

Everyone is selfish. We are both being selfish in presenting our perspectives.. in seeking comprehension.

This is an absurd effort at validation. Yes, it is 'selfish' to 'heal someone' because it makes me feel good to do so. I do not charge for my healing because it is I who heals also.. That, I guess, is selfish also. It is selfish to feed the hungry out of one's pocket because .. well, there's that good feeling again. It is also selfish to disturb the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood because you like to listen to your 'music' at airport decibels. It is also selfish to drive a vehicle, needlessly, that destroys the environment for all. What is your point? Can you not discern the difference between acts, and value them accordingly?

Why is our selfishness better than theirs? Who are we to say what they need? Have you ever driven an SUV? What about all the people who drive old, crappy gas gusslers because they can't afford anything else? Are they selfish?

See above.

You sound like an elitist to me.

I would have thought you beyond the calling of names...

IMO, this is a disrespectful, egotistical, angry rant. It happens.

Thank you for sharing. Moving right along....

And who is it that has that vision? Is it YOU? Should I believe you? Are you seeing the point? It's not about you.

There has always been a 'you' with a positive vision that 'leads the way'. It is who it is.. Why isn't it YOU???!!!

You seem to fit it into some frame where you are smart and cool and understand how much better you are than the stupid masses. I know you don't think that consciously, but seroiusly, can you see how one might gather it from the angle you present? Maybe I'm reading you wrong.

Of course you are reading this askew. For some reason you are being 'defensive/agressive' and that colors everything you perceive. I'm no better than anyone else. I am 'awake' though and can volitionally benefit my community as opposed to just taking! You can 'judge' my behavior as you like. My 'community' doesn't see a problem here. Motives are not relevent.

Perhaps you wouldnt' know the difference either. Are you so sure you would? Funny from a guy who knows nothing and has no name.

I don't 'know' the difference, my friend, I AM the difference.

Why so defensive? Are you rich, drive SUVs and gas guzzlers? Blast your 'music'? Have you no regard for others? Why so defensive?

 

[Baron Max]

I think we enjoy thinking of it as "justice" because it gratifies our emotional need/ego, when in fact.. there is no such thing (as justice).

What I simply can't get thru my head is the fact that you can't or won't understand that "justice" is what each society says it is?! Now you might disagree with that, but the fact remains clear ...justice is how the society defines it.

In Saudi Arabia, they cut off the right hand of a thief. In the USA, we fine them and/or put them in jail for little while (depending on the severity of the theft). But how can you say that both methods aren't justice? ...even if you disagree with the methods of dispensing it?

...the focus of the ever-changing system of laws we call "the justice system" will be far less effective because it's guided by emotion rather than cool headed management.

Cool headed management? What do you mean? Please explain.

If a person steals a candy bar worth $1. What would you call "justice"? And what would you call "cool headed management"?

Now, if that same person steals one candy bar a day, are you just going to let him do it? ...with no punishment(revenge?)?

And if the candy-bar thief gets away with stealing, why would that not embolden someone else to steal something far more valuable? And how would your "cool headed management" take care of that problem?

Wes, I'm really, seriously, not sure exactly what ye're trying to get at with all of your posts here? I mean, on one hand, it seems that you simply don't want us to call it "justice", as tho' you want a different word. On the other hand, it seems that you don't want any criminal to suffer anything for whatever law(s) he's violated??? I'm just not sure what your argument really is about.

Baron Max

 

[wesmorris]

Max, I just think the term is misleading.. that's all.

 

[nameless]

Me too!
*__-

 

[Baron Max]

Max, I just think the term is misleading.. that's all.

Misleading? I don't understand. I think the term "justice" is subjective, certainly, but "misleading"? If there are ten people in a discussion about a particular case, and five agree with the verdict, and five disagree. There is nothing "misleading" about the one group claiming that the verdict is "justice" ...even while the other group claims it's not.

Justice is how a society defines their system of law and punishment. It's not, as I see it, a universal or absolute ideal nor does each society claim it to be universal.

If you don't like the term "justice", would it be any different if we called it "xyz"?

I could be wrong, of course, but I think ye're seeking a system of absolute or universal "justice" ...and when humans can't even agree on the type of pizza to order, justice is not going to be agreeable to everyone, no matter how the system of law and punishment is defined.

Baron Max

 

[nameless]

'Justice' seems to imply 'fairness'.
The universe doesn't.
So we invent Karma, etc.. to ease our delicate emotional expectations.

 

[wesmorris]

Uhm.. .YEAH, and appeasing such expectation solidifies it, misleading from the real challenge of problem solving to prepare for life's "not fairness". In fact, we should expect that life isn't fair and do what we can to protect ourselves from it, or at least be able to handle it emotionally when it isn't... which as we'll note - many many people are not.

 

[Hapsburg]

"Justice" is just another word used by the police-states of the world (that is to say, just about every country) as justification for thier oppressive bullshit.