In class I asked what the standard is in defining justice. There are different beliefs and so there are different behaviors. Wouldn't our beliefs be relative to different circumstances? Is there even such a notion as universal justice? And how would you judge different behaviors that arise from different beliefs?
I noticed that in many aspects of life, the way humans filter out what is "just and what is not" comes from a sense of morality. If there was no such principle as an objective morality, then people, in history and even today, would not advance their rights, abolish slavery, or denounce witch craft as if we are all under an obligation to be good and to live in peace and harmony. In the Peloponnesian War, different powers go to war for the sake of security. I don't think the honor comes in killing other men, but, ironically, in contributing peace by fighting.
I think there is an innate knowledge of what really constitutes justice, and essentially what is good and what is bad (moral conscience).
I think that justice comes from the observer, not the ones involved. If one is deciding on justice for oneself by oneself, then there will always be bias, and therefore it will be unjust. Although I think notions of justice and morality are innate, and if not, are learned through personal experiences, everyone has differing definitions. So, while one's actions may be based on his own sense of morality, it will always be judged by others with another senses of morality and justice. Therefore, there is no one universal sense of justice or of honor. There is the sense of justice that the person carrying out the action is thinking of, then the sense that the recipient is thinking of, and then there is each sense of justice that each observer is thinking of.
ReplyDeleteAmy Shih
I agree with Amy's idea that there is no one meaning of justice. Someone's definition of justice not only depends on who they are, but also their perspective and their environment. When someone is seeking justice for themselves, they will likely have a different idea of what that should be than when they are not involved. For example, when we watch the news and hear about awful things that happen, like mass shootings, we say that is something unjust. But to the person who did the awful thing, they feel that they are doing the just thing because of their beliefs. This is true for the fighters in the Peloponnesian War as well. Each side has a different perspective of what is going on and have different motives. Therefore, their definitions of justice can't be the same.
ReplyDeleteI think that different beliefs and morals make it hard to create a universal standard for justice, like how you say that justice is a very relative term. It is not so difficult to define, but it has very different meanings to many people, such that the use of justice is determined by a culture's own set of moral codes. It's easy to take the standard dictionary definition, which Merriam Webster says is "the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals", but even that is vague. "Laws", "fairly judge", "crimes" and "criminals" are all relative terms that can have various meanings to different people.There is a universal definition for justice, but there lacks a common standard for it to be employed because there is no universal culture that abides by the same moral code.
ReplyDelete