Difference between revisions of "Justice (E4 DLR Fall 2012)"
(→Course Notes) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
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. | 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; however, because being correct 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" 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. | ||
Revision as of 18:59, 22 August 2012
Course Notes
Day 1: What is Justice?
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; however, because being correct 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" 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.
