Justice (E4 DLR Fall 2012)

Course Notes

Day 1: What is Justice?

Matthew: Justice is the punishment of ones wrongdoings, which can not only be administered by a government, but by anyone. Prior to the establishment of law and order, people would take justice into their own hands. If Ned the Neanderthal stole Igors meat, then Igor would in turn hit Ned with his club. This form of primal retribution shows that justice envelopes all types of punishments. Although the severity of punishments differs for each crime, justice in its true form is "an eye for an eye". Many leaders have strayed from the strict definition of the term, choosing to give sentences that are either much harsher, or more lax. In the story of Troy, Paris steals the love of his life Helen from a Mycenaean lord. As a result, the lord thought it just to invade Troy, an overly harsh and rash decision, but justice nonetheless. Although committing adultery may not seem like a reason to kill thousands of people, one can not judge the severity to which the crimes caused. There are too many variables to ever give exact justice in any situation' but it is the job of every man to try their best to do so.

Eric: Assuming we aren't talking about basketball, justice is the noun-form of the adjective "just" or "fair." One could say justice is whatever is right. Because I grew up loving batman, whenever I hear the term "justice," the word "league" immediately pops up in my head. While thinking about how to discuss this concept, I realized super-heroes can be used to explain the concept of justice. After all, these characters were created by adults (yes, to entertain) but also to teach our youth how to behave. My image of batman is constantly doing what is right in his opinion, even if he is pursued by the police. Batman believes that sometimes the law has to be broken to support justice in Gotham, as he demonstrates in many comic books and block-buster movies. The United States has its own "justice system." One that does its best to stop criminal activity. Our government seeks to find one solid rule that applies to every "criminal" situation, but is often criticized for its merits because of people's differing opinions. This is where the concept of justice becomes a bit hazy, at depends greatly on a person's individual stance and opinion. What is just for one person may not be for another. This lack of agreement is what sparks all of the modern strife involved with the legal system. Our government uses a majority to justify its actions. Simply put, Justice is an individual's perception of whatever is fair

Clayton: Since I have never thought about justice before, I started with a search on dictionary.com and the definition states that it is the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness. Basically when I think about justice, I always seem to think about laws, courts, and government, because we continually debate whether our government is being fair and just with all citizens of the US. Justice, to me, is more of a principle that people base their behavior off of. When a judge decides on his/her ruling, they have to take into account the severity of the crime, and give out punishment that they believe will be sufficient. Justice goes hand in hand with fairness, as taken from the title of our class. Both of these words are a part of moral responsibilities, not just for people in a position of power, but for everybody. Fairness, a word more commonly used with justice, is a governing principle in our country, school, and home. Justice, I think, is the thinking and reasoning behind fairness, and therefore the two are commonly used together. Many parts of our life are not fair or just, but we should not just accept that, especially with our parents. I never just say okay when my mom says "because we said so." They may have authority over me, but I deserve a just answer behind their choices. In school, our honor code serves as the principle that holds our community together and makes it strong. Justice sits at the core of our honor code, whether in an honor trial with SAC members or everyday in class when teachers decide what is fair information to put on a test. Therefore, justice is a part of our daily lives, and more people should try to understand and define it rather than just use it.

Clay: Justice, as it is most commonly defined as, is the act of seeking retribution against a person or an institution for previous wrongdoings. It is usually determined in a court of law by a group of peers, known as the jury, although it can be handled other ways (ie bargaining). However, justice is not a universal moral constant (as some might claim) and it varies from culture to culture and by the era. For instance, both the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trials caused the deaths of several people because they were called out as pagans and witches respectively. The only pieces of evidence held against them were accusations from local individuals (which did not need to be backed up any further) and forced "confessions" from the accused after they were tortured by officials. In contrast, the modern justice system assumes a person is innocent until proven guilty and they are provided with a fair trial. While the moral aspect of justice is a grey area, it is (and always will be) the way that people get even when they are wronged.

Spencer: Justice, clearly an abstract term to represent shades and certain degrees of fairness, holds true meaning within the individual. To me, justice comprises a notion that every action performed, good or bad, should have a equal response to it. Clearly since all actions cannot be monitored by one's peers, government or bystanders, these responses cannot be appropriately given. Opposed to a more traditional view of justice being a punishment, good actions can be served justice if they are acknowledged and promoted. My thoughts on justice, as the "flip side" of actions, can (and probably do) conflict with several of my classmates views on justice. With any idea so non concrete, this could create miscommunications as well as arguments. No one individual can be correct in the other person's eyes; however, because being correct to the other person would involve a complete relenting of personal belief by the other person. (Real world example: If someone goes on for hours about how God is important in your life but you don't know it yet, if your true beliefs are that God doesn't exist, you won't--and shouldn't be expected to-- relinquish your true beliefs. Thus both individuals are "correct" to themselves because they have total belief in their views of something intangible). As a class, we can probably agree that justice would involve some sense of punishing the bad doers in our society. But past that basic belief, on a deeper level of quantities of justice, why justice should be implemented and by whom it should be implemented, no two ideas can possibly coincide. So putting other words equally as ambiguous to define justice can lead an individual to a certain level of understanding, but the leap to fully understand something like justice requires the invocation of basic personal beliefs.

Josh B: Justice is a form of retribution that the state inflicts upon those who violate a predetermined set of rules agreed upon by the majority of the populace. The populace may decide upon rules that are objectively unfair, however presuming that the rule does not violate The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (in which case punishment administered by the state is oppression, not justice), all citizens of that state are bound by those rules - simply by continuing to live in the community, they are implicitly agreeing to remain within the bounds of the law. If a person violates the law, the state must prove guilt through a fair trial (not necessarily by jury, but in an unbiased court) before sentencing the lawbreaker to a reasonable and proportionate punishment. This punishment should either provide compensation for the victim, prevent the lawbreaker from committing additional offenses through rehabilitation or confinement, or perform some combination of the two.

Avi: Justice is an inherent part of any civilization. Justice is praising the virtuous and punishing the wicked and perverted. Starting with Hammurabi's Code--"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," civilizations have progressively defined what justice is in the context of their societies. Justice is an important aspect of society because without justice law would be dysfunctional. There is no point of having laws if they are not going to be enforced; if someone breaks the rules, he or she is to be punished through the "justice system." Justice is also what teaches us to behave in a morally correct manner. Justice has two primary methods of teaching people to behave righteously: the reward system and the punishment system. As our Humble and Friendly Narrator Alex in A Clockwork Orange learns, punishment is a very effective form of teaching righteousness. Similarly, rewarding good behavior helps to ingrain morality into people's minds. Justice has multiple functions and is indubitably one of the biggest necessities in any society--a functioning society, that is. When the justice system becomes corrupt, the society becomes corrupt too; this corruption can lead to a drastic change in the society or the collapse of the society altogether. Just look at A Clockwork Orange; when the "millicents" become corrupt and start beating up innocent citizens, people begin to fight back in order to overthrow the current "Government." A properly functioning justice system is the first step to a properly functioning civilization and society.

Blake: Justice, according to Nietzsche, is a bargaining system among the equally powerful. One could think of human justice as a stock exchange: the trading guidelines are society's code of morals, while the actual trades are the passing of judgement itself. For example, we execute those who have murdered someone else in cold blood; we kill the murderer as recompense for the one who was murdered. Likewise, we fine those who speed on the street as recompense for their endangering the lives of other drivers with their reckless driving. Hammurabi embodies this ideal plainly in his law code: an eye for an eye. Thus, when we dole out justice, we are essentially judging whether the consequences of an action on one person match the consequences of that same action on another. We weigh the consequences of an action on a proverbial scale. If the scale weighs evenly on both sides, then a just decision was made. If the scale leans more towards one side than the other, then an unjust decision was made. Justice, as Nietzsche explains in his writings, is essentially an elaborate bargaining system focused on human interaction. The catch is that the notion of justice exists solely among the equally powerful. One has to be empowered enough to seize the justice that is his. For example, we glaze over the fact that we hold animals behind bars in places we call zoos. The animals have no say in whether or not they'd like to be there; we just put them there for our amusement. However, if one were to take human beings, and place them behind bars without their consent, it would be labeled as something unjust. These two groups are thrust into the same situation with the exact same parameters; it's just that one group is empowered enough to claim justice while the other is not. Thus, the notion of the scale becomes distorted once one starts to deal with groups of unequal power, and any true notions of justice cease to exist.

Ethan: When the term "justice" is uttered it tends to invoke a feeling of good in hearts. Justice generally carries a positive connotation and makes people feel happy when they hear about justice being administered. It frequently tends to be associated with a legal process that occurs in the courts and is carefully thought out by great philosophers and legal minds, making it out to sometimes be a very esoteric concept. But justice is a principle that all people should come to understand as a fundamental part of human interaction. The idea or concept that we should be fair to one another and treat each other with respect lies at the essence of what justice truly means. It can and should occur at all levels, therefore making the world we live in a better place.

Alberto: Justice is the manner in which a society rewards or punishes actions that that society deems morally right or wrong. Justice differs between societies based on the unique moral and social values of each society, and as a result there can be very different forms or styles of justice. However, justice generally follows a rather straightforward template: when a person does something that society thinks is good they are justly rewarded and when a person does something that society thinks is bad they are punished. Justice is a vital part of social survival and indeed any form of social interaction. All social animals have a social sense of justice which individual members of the group follow to ensure that they get along and thrive within the group. Wolves, gorillas, chimpanzees, birds, and even some insects have complex systems of crime and punishment based on the rules set forth by the alpha, where any form of act seen as disruptive or harmful towards the group is immediately and severely punished. Human society too has this sense of justice, and in our modern world we have built powerful institutions to carry out this punishment of those who would do harm to our society. Similarly to pack animals, we humans have an inherent distrust and hatred towards actions which we perceive to threaten social order, and subsequently social safety. It is this fear of social disruption that subconsciously pushes human societies to punish and reward the actions of individuals based on the perceived social result. However, human justice can further be defined as an animalistic desire to maintain social order influenced by a societies unique brand of morality. Just as there are several different kinds of human societies, there are several kinds of social morality. There is social morality based on religion, based on scientific knowledge, based on economic status, and based on numerous other factors, but no matter what its basis is a type of morality is at the root of any form of justice. In conclusion, justice is an essential part of any society and is the established manner in which the society rewards or punishes the deeds of individuals as dictated by the society's sense of morality.

Philip: I think justice is giving to each what is due to him, or basically treating everyone how they ought to be treated. The question then arises of how people “ought to be treated.” I think there is no specific answer that is applicable to everyone. There are some general statements that are universally applicable, for example, people should be treated in a way that does not violate their human dignity. I think the specific case of using Ludovico’s Technique on Alex is clearly unjust because it violates his human dignity, but in general I think determining justice is tricky. The courts always come to mind because of the association with law and justice. In that case, part of the judge’s role is to determine a just punishment, one that the criminal deserves, and therefore what is due to him. However justice is much wider reaching than the courts and should govern our relationships with others.

Joshua D: To me, justice is simply a concept we use to support and enforce a set of rules or code of ethics that we as individuals follow. Why must something be? Because it is just and right. Justice is essentially a "state of rightness". However, what is "right" for one society or individual can be totally different from another. For this reason, in some parts of the world it is a crime for women to drive cars, while in the United States that action is nothing close to a crime. A country's laws are informed by what its society generally deems as "right" or "just", but laws don't exclusively punish everything that someone might deem "unjust" for the simple reason that a penal code for a nation must fit everyone's idea of justice to a degree. While pretty much everyone agrees that actions such as murder and rape are wrong (unjust) and therefore are crimes punishable under law, there are other issues the law mostly avoids that may seem unjust to some, but perfectly okay to others. For example some people may feel that it is unjust and there is something fundamentally wrong with the fact that an individual can make more money in two weeks just by being the head of a corporation than two hardworking individuals raising a family can together make in one year. Justice varies from person to person, and while two people may have similar concepts of justice, no two will have exactly the same feeling.

Rohan: Justice is the art of determining what is "right" and "wrong". Justice is almost impossible to explain in any theoretical context without either resorting to uninformative (if pithy) platitudes such as "killing is wrong" or injecting some form, however minor, of social bias. It is thus more useful to explain this in the context of real-world situations, and thus the problem arises. Describing logic is much like describing the prime numbers - it's one thing to say what it is (i.e. numbers with no other divisors but one and itself), but it's quite another to describe it without using any concrete examples (i.e. numbers that, when large enough, can be multiplied by each other to create a reasonably solid encryption system). However, in doing so (although perhaps less obviously in the case of prime numbers), one automatically resorts to some example that is relevant in the context of their society, which invariably and irrevocably corrupts the purity of the abstraction of the concept. The reason is that justice is both universal and an artificial human construct and therefore it becomes impossible to sustain large-scale "justice" without invariably offending some particularly litigious party. For example, during the Rwandan Genocide, any external observer would automatically look upon the actions of the two tribes with incredible disdain, and invariably (depending on their familiarity with the situation) claim that one of the two groups was acting unjustly, for the simple reason that they were encouraging large-scale genocide for no other reason than social cleansing, and obviously, murder is wrong. Even that idea, however - that taking the life of another human being is wrong - is open to interpretation. In fact, arguably, if one were to study any situation perceived by one's society to be unjust in enough detail, one would be forced to conclude that neither side was acting justly or unjustly - they simply acted. For example, as I said, a skim of the Wikipedia article on the Rwandan Genocide would invariably lead the reader to make a snap judgment - that the event was a tragedy and a travesty. A slightly more involved reader might conclude that the genocide was largely the fault of instigating Hutus, and proceed to use his or her own (that is, his or her society's) ideas of justice to conclude that one of the tribes was behaving unjustly. An even more involved reader, however, might conclude (perhaps with the help of some external sources) that neither side was in the wrong. Both tribes historically encouraged the use of ritual war paint or masks that, as any psychologist might tell you, has the effect of dehumanizing the fighter and instead creating a formidable unity among the members of a single battalion that would invariably cause the group to fight tooth and nail not for themselves, but for the good of their tribes. Thus, murder becomes justified, and genocide becomes an inevitability. Perhaps, then, both tribes were behaving unjustly because they supported this rampant and destructive dehumanization! Even then, however, the informed reader would go back and say that socially-encouraged behaviors - such as the war paint, a tradition dating back hundreds, if not thousands, of years - are locally just - and this leads to the creation of an entirely new idea of justice, the "social justice", as it were, that arises as a result of studying particular cases with respect to the locally held beliefs. Thus, justice can only be vaguely defined, and anything more specific becomes a locally-influenced corruption of this higher, ethereal concept of true justice. Social justice, then, becomes an entirely constructed institution. For example, in A Clockwork Orange, it becomes fairly evident that the government is acting under very different ethics and morals than our current government is - the forced rehabilitation of Alex in such a violent manner, for example, is clearly, as we would see it, wrong. Obviously, however, if even Dim can be persuaded to join the government's "peace"-keeping arm, then it becomes obvious that the ideas the government encourages can permeate even through the most hardened (and, according to Alex, least full) of rebellious mindsets. In conclusion, therefore, justice is what is right and wrong, and since the standardization of this concept is next to impossible, we instead resort to locally-defined, state-sponsored versions of justice, defined as "what we are told is right and wrong".

Logan: Justice in its purest form is punishing one for one's wrong doings. A price must be paid and someone has to be punished to make up for what's been done. the actual idea of justice and fairness is something that has developed over time and is adjusted for each society. In the age of the Roman's a man caught stealing a purse would have his hand chopped off so he can no longer do that. In this day and age the man might go to prison but would not lose his hand. In this way, justice is very adaptable because it has to relate to the society in which it belongs. It is payment for something done and is relateable to the society.