I sent that as a question to a person today in a text. Somehow, my phone glitched and it mass texted about half the people in my phone book, which turned out to be my good fortune. The responses I've gotten back have amazed me, from the amount of thought people are able to put into a few texts, the variety of world views people expressed, and even how people choose to interpret the question. So with that happening, I knew I had to ask you guys, because I have no doubts you all will blow me away.
Do they though? Here's three things to consider. If Justice is a concept that only exists in the human mind, then how do we explain social animals who exhibit behaviors such as altruism or shunning? From the time we're young, we know that when someone wrongs us it causes us emotional and psychological pain. When things are righted, some if not all of that pain is alleviated. If Justice is an abstract, where do these feelings of pain and relief come from and why do they exist? If Justice were a completely human construct, invented by us, perpetuated by us, controlled by us, and nowhere else. By creating social structures and systems that creates behavior and beliefs centered around the idea of Justice, by treating it as something real and consequential, doesn't that mean Justice exists even if its us who willed it into existence?Abstract concepts like Justice exist within human minds and nowhere else.
When we have a good definition of consciousness ask that question again. untill you can ask a monkey about it's motivations, you can't ascribe human concepts to evolved behavior. An argument in favor of my point. This all occurs in your head. Depending on your definitions, it can be said that humans label certain actions and behaviors 'Just' and so 'Justice' exists as a set of behaviors we exhibit. Which I think still supports my point. Thought leads to behavior. Edit* Take a picture of one 'Justice' and link it in your reply. This of course all goes out the window if you bring deity into the question, which I explicitly choose to not do.If Justice is a concept that only exists in the human mind, then how do we explain social animals who exhibit behaviors such as altruism or shunning?
If Justice is an abstract, where do these feelings of pain and relief come from and why do they exist?
doesn't that mean Justice exists even if its us who willed it into existence?
If we see reflections of concepts such as altruism in animals, which are themselves reflections of concepts such as Justice and Morality, wouldn't that in some ways point to the idea that Justice is a naturally occurring phenomenon? Is it though? Would you argue then, that our thoughts and feelings aren't real, and therefore unworthy of consideration and potentially inconsequential? In another light of my previous question about thoughts, if behavior is the consequence of thought, where does that leave us? I think we're doing just fine viewing things from a secular lens. I like your answers by the way. They're making me think. I'll tell you what, because I feel like I'm being unfair to you by asking so many questions. I'm gonna take the dog for a walk and when I get back, I'll post my thoughts on the matter and you can ask me questions as well.When we have a good definition of consciousness ask that question again. untill you can ask a monkey about it's motivations, you can't ascribe human concepts to evolved behavior.
An argument in favor of my point. This all occurs in your head.
Depending on your definitions, it can be said that humans label certain actions and behaviors 'Just' and so 'Justice' exists as a set of behaviors we exhibit. Which I think still supports my point. Thought leads to behavior.
This of course all goes out the window if you bring deity into the question, which I explicitly choose to not do.
I think this discussion boils down, once again, to what is the definition of justice so that it can be considered a constant to begin with. To that end, you'd be able to answer: what did justice look like in the prehistoric era - an era before humans as we know us, who brought the notion to light for ourselves.
A "Sense of Justice" may well be universal and constant for any social being that forms communities with its peers. "Justice" itself however is formed from these communities and can only be effective within them with a single sovereign power (Monarch or Constitutional Office (e.g. The President)). For more on this read Hobbes' Leviathan and subsequent enlightenment thinkers. Therefore it is clear that Justice in our mortal experience is neither constant nor universal as there are many communities with different degrees of justice that are inconsistent with each other. So effectively your question leads the answer towards concepts that only a Monotheist would argue for, needing a sovereign, omnipotent and eternal power in which Justice could flow in an existence beyond our mortal experience. Interestingly what came first do we think? Our ideas of Justice or Monotheism?
based on the talkreligion tag, I will answer from my humble, personal, religious-yet-non-prosylitizing perspective... so you'll have to leave logic and reason at the door. absolutely - but only inasmuch as you believe in a distinct, perfect entity who can/will make perfect judgments about what is "just".
See, that's the fun thing! The answers I got from people were so varied, I wanted to leave the question open and slightly ambiguous. So I guess what I'd ask you is, how would you define it? Wonderful link by the way. I'm reading it now and thoroughly enjoying it.How do you define Justice?
I think your two cents says a lot, actually. They feel more like four, or even eight cents. :P If you're willing to elaborate, I'm curious to hear what holes you're willing to poke into your definition.Either way, I know that I didn't answer your original question. That's just my two cents.
::Squints Angrily:: You would reduce it to a math problem, wouldn't you? That aside, I think it's a great illustration as to the perils of vigilantism and at the same time illustrates the need for structured law based on fairness and investigation. So let me ask you this. Do you think the action and the reaction need to be identical to have the same value? Not necessarily in the whole framing scenario, but in that often the idea of "an eye for an eye" comes to be unreasonable for a whole list of reasons.
Principles of justice are entirely human, abstract and personal. Our ideas of what is fair is also changing dramatically over the decades. While in nature it does sometime look like justice arises (e.g. when animals share some other animal they hunted), this is not much more than a complex (tribal) survival mechanism. So no, I don't think it's universal or constant.
My non-religious view is balance is a universal constant, and among people, justice is how were try to apply balance to society.
I think Justice exists and is more than just morality. I think it creates a desire in each of us to exist in a sense of equilibrium or rightness, because when that equilibrium is missing we feel ill at ease. As a clumsy metaphor, when we're cold we try to find ways to make ourselves warm. With Justice, when we're wronged, we try to find ways to rectify that. I also happen to think of Justice in terms of a moral absolute that is beyond our perception. In the sense that there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Where we struggle comes from the fact that even though it's binary, it's so grainular that in many areas all we see is grey. Partly because the distinctions can be so elusive, but also partly because we don't always have the proper insight. I think our changing perceptions of what is right and Just has nothing to do with any fluidity of Justice and everything to do with our abilities to see things in better and clearer detail. Justice for us today, in terms of laws for example, might be very different from Justice five hundred years ago, not because Justice changed but because our understanding of ourselves and the world around us has changed. I'm religious, so that colors my ideas a bit, but I think even in a secular way the above makes some sense.