What is justice?

..justice is what the strongest grants.

Do I detect a scintilla of cynicism here?

Are you saying that among the weak no justice ever occurs?
It is up to you to define the terms you use, such as "strongest." Would that include Plato? Or Kant?
Would it include Nelson Mandela?
How about Jennifer Hudson? Barbra Streisand? Opra Winfrey?

I conclude that that little guy -- Mohandas K. Gandhi -- was the strongest. He died owning a bowl and a sheet he wore. Yet he would have quickly given them to you if he thought you needed them more.

You seem very disillusioned, HexHammer. Yet we must avoidthe sickness of pessimism. It It builds nothing constructive. It throws cold water on creativity.

In contrast, many wise folks recommend optimism as a lifestyle. Try it. We will all feel better as a result, and we will all be in a position to be more effective in changing this world for the better.

To be realistic is to hope for the best, to expect the worst, and to work to make the best come to pass, and to avoid the worst.

Every realist is also an optimist, else he would lack the vision to be realistic. To imagine 'the best' is to have vision.


[I guess it's okay to be 'a healthy cynic.' That's how I would describe Mark Twain, Will Rogers, and H. L. Mencken.]

Yet we must avoidthe sickness of pessimism. It builds nothing constructive. It throws cold water on creativity.

In this argument I shall define and analyze the concept "justice."

Perhaps most Ethics Forum members can agree with me that justice is relevant to ethics, that the two concepts are closely related, that "morality without justic is blind, " to paraphrase what Kant said on another topic. First we must present some preliminaries so as to better grasp the analysis of "justice."

{In the following analysis I shall employ some tools first suggested by the philosopher Robert S. Hartman, a true, creative, genius. I refer to his "Dimensions of Value". They are, specifically, the fulfilment of, respectively, a synthetic concept, an analytic concept, and a singular concept. (I use these terms in the sense which Kant used them in his book, Logik. There he was speaking of concepts rather than propositions. )
As Hartman has written at some length (- and I shall condense it here -) incongruence or incoherence results in what he has named Transposition of Value - which is a disvalue. The fulfilment of a synthetic concept is called: Systemic Value. The fulfilment of an analytic concept is: Extrinsic Value. And the fulfilment of a singular concept is to be known as: Intrinsic Value.}

[As I wrote earlier, describing Hartman's Formal Axiology as it applies to Ethics:
"A good hammer has everything a hammer is supposed to have, in your picture of a hammer. A good person likewise has a full set of features and characteristics that a person would ideally have. To call something "good" is to say it has full value, and that it completely fulfills the meaning of its concept.
According to Value Science there are three types of basic values. They are Systemic Value, Extrinsic Value, and Intrinsic Value. Abbreviated these are S, E, and I. And Dr. Leon Pomeroy tells us that it is as important to know our SEIs as it is to know our ABCs.
Here are some examples:
Thoughts areS-values; things are E-values; persons and involvements are I-values. They result when the basic value dimensions are applied.
People usually S-Value theories, systems, ideologies, blueprints, plans, zip codes, circuit diagrams, technical language, black-and-white thinking, scientific models, and all the "isms." They are appropriately valued Systemically.
E-Value is the valuation people usually place upon things of this world, practicalities, empirical matters, know-how, savoir-faire, social, everyday concerns, functionality, diplomacy, worldly considerations, categories, etc.
You are likely to I-Value your mother, your spouse, your dearest ones, unique persons you love, beloved treasures, masterpieces of art, priceless items, etc. We value those Intrinsically whenever we identify with and bond with them.
Value scientists speak of those three values as "dimensions of value." We need them all. The three value dimensions form a hierarchy with S-value worth the least; E-value worth infinitely more; and I-value the most precious of all - worth far, far more than any E-value. The correct hierarchy of values, in symbols, is S < E < I. And thus to place S above I; or to give more weight to E than to I would be a fallacy.
The highest of the three basic values is Intrinsic Value, or I-value." The discipline of "Ethics" arises when persons are Intrinsically valued, according to value scientists [i.e., Formal Axiologists.]. all of this is explained clearly in detail in the transcript of an informal talk given by Hartman: "The Measurement of Value." ]

Now that the preliminaries are out of the way, my contention here is that Formal Axiology has something to say about the concept "Justice" that may be helpful. What do you think: does the applications of the tools of this new science of values, when applied to this concept elucidate the subject?

I shall define JUSTICE as meaning: "the restoration and maintenance of a balance."

There are at least four modes of justice, on a continuum from worst to best; this analysis says that justice is a matter of degree rather than just "black or white."

These dimensions are: Transposed Justice (fragmented value), which is Retribution or Retaliation, an "eye for an eye," which eventually "renders everybody blind......."

Next, there is -- when the Systemic Value dimension is applied to "justice" -- Equality or Equal treatment under law. "Every one is entitled to his day in court," "All are equal in the eyes of the law." [And Law itself can be analyzed by the axiological dimensions into Statute Law, Common Law, and Moral Law, each one worth more than the last.]

And then there is Compensation or Equity: one doesn't trade an apple for an automobile, quid quo pro, a judge taking into consideration the circumstances of the perpertrator's life, etc. This is the result of Extrinsic Value being applied to "justice."

When Intrinsic Value is applied, we get: Rehabilitation or Reconciliation. An illustration of this form of justice may be what was the practice in some African tribe when a murderer's dispensation was that he had to enter into the extended family of his victim, and assume all the responsibilities of the one he is replacing, and in this way he paid his debt to the community. Recently, in the Western World we find that the practice of "creative sentencing" on the part of some jurists often contributes to rehabilitation of offenders.

{The notion of Justice results in law, in social contracts. There are three major types of law.

(S) Juridical; written codes; legislation

(E) Common Law

( I ) The Moral Law ; also conclusions of Ethical Science.

Each outweighs the former in value.}

This is the formal axiological analysis of Justice, and perhaps it sheds some light on the topic. I believe it does. I'd like to know if you can improve upon, or enhance, this definition and analysis of the concept "Justice."