[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.1351

File: 1566523686460.png (193.37 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, justice.png) ImgOps Google

What is justice?

Plato wrote a book as an answer.  It's a bit nutty, though.  Maybe we have better answers now.

 No.1352

Pretty much a kind of social equality, as that balanced scale in the hands of the statue of justice would suggest.

 No.1353

File: 1566543612233.png (638.35 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, image (1).png) ImgOps Google

>>1352
Justice involves some characteristics being inconsequential to enforcement, then?

 No.1354

An eye for an eye, at its most basic level.

 No.1355

File: 1566564729552.jpg (308.24 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, chickens.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1354
>eye for an eye
On a truly selfish level, why would I care about harming my neighbor?  If he cuts down one of my trees, cutting down his won't repair my tree, why bother?  (True, sometimes theft can be repaired).  But in a community of individuals expected to respond to harm with vengeance, you can not personally gain from harming or exploiting others.  Perhaps vengeance is the instinct that helps people achieve this first level of just community.

 No.1356

>>1355
>On a truly selfish level, why would I care about harming my neighbor?  
From what I remember of game theory, tit-for-tat seems to work well as a long-term strategy.

 No.1357

Justice is an excuse used by sociopaths to harm other people.

 No.1359

>>1357
Nah, it also works pretty well as a deterrent.  For every Epstein, there are probably at least 10 pedos who kept their dick in their pants out of fear of the retribution they would be served if caught molesting a child.

 No.1360

>>1355
It's not a matter of selfishness. Selfishness is ultimately what necessitates justice to begin with.
As to vengeance, keep in mind that vengeance isn't always just, and justice does not always involve vengeance.

Justice is more about enforcing a standard playing field, if you will. The idea being that the rules and standards we've set are applied to everyone, equally.
That if you break those rules, the damages you've caused, at the very least, will be applied to you as well.
The core concept of these punishments in their nature is to combat selfishness. It's more about maintaining a civilized society, then it is about some kind of personal gain.

Mind you that justice is a very flimsy thing.
nothing is worse than punishing somebody who does not deserve it. It's why vigilantism is ultimately frowned on. Not because it isn't useful, or that it doesn't work, or anything like that. The problem is that there is a solid chance somebody innocent will get caught in the crossfire, or a punishment won't fit a crime.
A system which punishes an innocent person is in effect the same as any criminal who would rob you, kidnap you, and so on.
As such, much in the same way as you wouldn't have an obligation to listen to the demands of someone stealing from you, and moreover would have the right to defend yourself from a would-be aggressor, you have absolutely no obligation to bend the knee to an unjust system.
which of course is why we have such a rigorous standards when it comes to Justice systems. We must assume innocent until proven guilty, because assuming guilt will inevitably lead to innocent people being punished. And if innocent people are being punished, people no longer have any moral obligation of any kind to abide by our systems given law or demands of justice.
The system inevitably collapses in that regard.

 No.1361

>>1356
The problem with its most basic form is that ultimately the aggressor doesn't suffer worse than the victim. It's why most laws systems around the world tend to punish people more harshly, compared to the damage is a victim suffered.

it does depend somewhat on how much you value a life, but, personally, even with things like murder, where somebody might end up going free after 20 years, seems a fairly steep punishment to me. That is a massive chunk of your life, after all. You could argue that the person who was murdered lost that chunk of life, but, I'm not entirely sure myself.
Theft is, at least, more easily pointed to, to demonstrate what I mean. If somebody steal something, there's a good chance that they will lose far more than that item is worth.

 No.1362

>>1357
Easy to say living in a place with a strong justice system.
Try anarchy, some time. See how that fares.

unless you want to suggest we somehow have laws without bothering with Justice. In which case, it should come as absolutely no surprise to you that when you have an unjust system that does not treat people fairly, people get uppity, usually with the desire to resist that unfair system.
I don't consider that to be sociopathy, myself. But, maybe I simply have more empathy.

 No.1364

>>1362
>Try anarchy, some time. See how that fares.

Anarchy isn't a system free from people seeking justice.  Arguably one of its greatest flaws is that there's nothing to prevent justice from being sought.  The strength or weakness of a legal system has nothing to do with the concept of justice.

 No.1365

>>1357
Justice involves enforcement.  State enforcement runs the range from giving people money and services, to torture and execution.  I'm not sure what you're saying.  Perhaps that sociopaths are especially good at executing justice.  Or that justice is bad.

>>1360
Right, vengeance can be altruistic, within limits.

>vigilantism is ultimately frowned on
I suppose especially where the state is seen as a more reliable alternative.

>innocent people being punished
Rather like Type I and II errors in statistics.  The assumption of innocence perhaps says it's better to let some guilty go free than punish the innocent.

>no obligation to bend the knee to an unjust system
I agree.  A respectable system punishes exactly those who need punishment.

>>1362
>Try anarchy, some time.
A lack of a state tends to be bad for humans.  Of course, few try anarchy, they fall into it because their government collapsed, and government don't just collapse, some catastrophe caused collapse.  So there are a lot of confounding variables.  But sadly, happy anarchy relies on everyone behaving, or at least not misbehaving badly enough that individuals can't respond.  It just takes one to cause a lot of damage, so it probably only works on small scales.

>>1364
You're thinking of the first level of justice where people are restrained by not wanting to be the object of vengeance?  A flaw is people may end up in blood feuds, or whatever?

 No.1366

>>1365
>State enforcement runs the range from giving people money and services, to torture and execution.  I'm not sure what you're saying.

You don't need a state to achieve "justice".  If a young Jack steals a cookie belonging to young Jill and Jill retaliates as a result, that may count as justice, despite no authority being involved.  But it is the retaliation itself that holds so much potential for wrongdoing.

Justice, as I usually see it used, is the enacting of some level of vengeance, as opposed to merely stopping a criminal from continuing to commit crimes.  In this sense, justice is only a desire to inflict harm upon other people.  I hold no animosity towards a state for trying to restrain justice.  A strong legal system, in my opinion, exists not only to prevent crime, but also to prevent justice.

 No.1367

>>1364
personally I would consider the greatest flaw with anarchism to be the ramp and violence crime in general mistreatment of your fellow man.
You know, basically where you have a system without any protections whatsoever stopping you from being kidnapped raped and tortured?

Personally, I would have been inclined to think that's a far worse fault compared to a bit of unorganized vigilantism.

 No.1368

>>1365
>I suppose especially where the state is seen as a more reliable alternative.
Yeah, that was kind of what I was getting at. Whatever the state fails to provide Justice, naturally people tend to seek it out by any means I can. And this way vigilantism is ultimately inevitable.
We see that today, in a lot of cases. One of the more prevalent ones, I would say, is the rising clash of antifa and the groups sing to show up just to fight them.

 No.1369

>>1366
So...what productively causes people to behave is good.  Justice is retaliation for misbehavior, and not always good.  OK, I think I see that.

 No.1370

>>1366
It's more of that if somebody sees Jack steal a cookie from Jill, and so forces Jack to pay for that cookie, that can be justice.
the individual harmed does not have to be the one to engage in this way. The point is to enforce m equal standard between the two. What's more about fairness than anything else.

>, as opposed to merely stopping a criminal from continuing to commit crimes
that is largely because stopping crimes in and of itself is not necessarily just.
I could have all thieves, regardless of value stolen, executed, and probably stop theft by large. Certainly those individuals who stole would never steal again. But that's hardly something I would call Justice. there's no equal measure there. There's no fairness. The punishment does not match the crime.

That is what ultimately tends to separate Justice and vengeance. Besides the personality of it. Naturally you can't really extract revenge for somebody else. But besides that, the point of justice is to be fair. Vengeance is often not.

 No.1371

>>1369
But what constitutes behave?
I would have defined it before more as the agreement we make as a society what is acceptable to do two others. Largely based on what is acceptable to do to you.
In a more anarchic sense, what I do to you you can do to me. That would have been the foundation of what I would have considered unacceptable or acceptable behavior, but, if the system isn't punishing people in a fair manner, what's the point?
How can we claim people are behaving, when some people are held to different standards and others?

 No.1372

>>1371
Thinking about it, this is really just what's wrong, not even what falls under "good".
Good tends to be more about selfless actions, assisting others where there is no gain for you, more or less.
I'm not really sure how we even encourage that, of course, let alone enforce it

 No.1373

>>1370
>Naturally you can't really extract revenge for somebody else.

Technically speaking, you can.  That's usually called "avenging" someone.  Note the similar root word.

And speaking of definitions, we've definitely assigned different meanings to "justice".  The Google defines it as "just behavior or treatment", which isn't necessarily helpful.  "Just", then, is an adjective meaning "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair".  Which is a more useful definition and much closer to how you're using, but still reveals it to be incredibly subjective.

Personally, I usually see people use the word justice when they're seeking some level of vengeance, which is why I conflate the two terms so easily.  All vengeance is inherently a form of justice, I would argue, as people seeking vengeance are always trying to make something more fair or morally right.  But perhaps not all justice is based on vengeance, depending on what you consider morally right.

 No.1374

What is meant by "social justice"?

 No.1375

>>1371
>what constitutes behave
It's a good question.  In a usual state, it's what won't get you punished, perhaps mixed in with some basic social norms.  Which means those with the power to punish decide what it means to behave, mostly.

>agreement we make as a society what is acceptable to do two others
Enforcement people are willing to accept (or can be made willing) sets boundaries on what the powers-that-be can punish (or reward, I guess).

>what I do to you you can do to me
Seems you'd need some kind of general agreement on value, or at least an understanding of what each considers harm and help so you can respond in kind.  But yeah, I think that's a pretty basic ethic.

>some people are held to different standards and others?

Are you talking about enforcers or people in general?

 No.1376

>>1373
I would be inclined to argue it's a quite different thing. Though it still has a similar personals high, given that you typically, near as I can tell always, avenge something dear to you.

>All vengeance is inherently a form of justice, I would argue,
and naturally I would argue otherwise, given it doesn't fit the definition you provided here. It is not always Fair. It can be, and in that case with some vengeance can indeed be true, but it is not always just.

 No.1377

>>1374
effectively, as I've always understood it, enforcing social fairness through punishment. Which isn't really going to ever result in anything just, given that you have to ultimately judge people for social aspects not necessarily relating to anything they've actually done. Given that these items tend to concern race and gender, it seems especially likely to result in unfair treatment, given that you are of course never responsible for the sins of your father's, nor are you responsible for the sins of a group you belong to only by virtue of being born a certain color or gender

 No.1378

>>1376
>It is not always Fair.

It is always fair to the person seeking it.  That is why they are seeking it.  To them it is just.

 No.1379

>>1378
I'd disagree. I think even they realize, in extreme cases, it's far from fair.
Killing someone's family because someone stole from you might fall under the umbrella of vengeance, bit I doubt the guy doing it thinks it's actually any kind of equal exchange.

But, if you want to make this case, fine. That's why I'm opposed to vigilantism.

 No.1380

>>1375
>Seems you'd need some kind of general agreement on value, or at least an understanding of what each considers harm and help so you can respond in kind.  But yeah, I think that's a pretty basic ethic.

That would be the ideal role of the judicial system, judges and all that, to determine the standard as used by the system prior primarily, with reference to law put in practice by officials representing the populace.
Ideally, of course.
Doesn't always work out


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]