Opinions Welcome - Order or Justice

I've been thinking about how both left and right appear to share the opinion of the 'other' that they are all about controlling behavior somehow. My thinking isn't all that clear on the subject, hence the appeal for opinions.

I guess the place to start is a definition of Justice and sorting out the difference between justice and fairness. Then perhaps move on to the Order vs Justice question.

From Oxford American

justice

Just behaviour or treatment. ‘a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people’

The quality of being fair and reasonable. ‘the justice of his case’

The administration of the law or authority in maintaining this. ‘a tragic miscarriage of justice’

I'm not altogether convinced that justice and fairness are the same thing. What do you think.

originally posted by: FyreByrd


I'm not altogether convinced that justice and fairness are the same thing. What do you think.

They are not.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

... I'm not altogether convinced that justice and fairness are the same thing. What do you think. ...

This is a question with theological ramifications as well. I often say that God is not fair, but He is always just.

Fairness is a very subjective concept. Ask two Americans - a lifelong welfare recipient and a hardworking taxpayer who's never received public aid - what is "fair" in regards to the social safety net and you'll get two very different answers to the question of fairness. The recipient thinks that it's fair to receive taxpayer funded assistance. The working man thinks that it's fair that he be allowed to keep what he's worked for, offer social aid from his own pocket as he sees fit, and make the recipient find a job and work for his keep. In that case, what is just?

Justice requires measurement against a transcendent, established, immutable standard of what is right or wrong. For that standard to exist, there must be a transcendent, immutable point of reference. Once a society abandons the idea of any transcendent, immutable point of reference (i.e, descends into the dark pit of moral relativism), there is nothing to measure justice against, so it becomes a matter of fairness. We each define fairness according to our own point of view and our own objectives, so there is now no way to define what is just.

The progressive left hates the president and are convinced that he is a danger to their own philosophy and agenda, so any action to remove him becomes "fair," if not just or honest or true. Moral relativism reigns supreme, truth and justice be damned.
:

The minute we monetized lawmaking it was over.

a reply to: incoserv


Applause!

a reply to: incoserv

The progressive left hates the president and are convinced that he is a danger to their own philosophy and agenda, so any action to remove him becomes "fair,"

The regressive right worships the President and views any attempt to criticize him as an attack on them personally and their entire way of life. So they will defend everything, no matter the magnitude of criminality he's involved in. So every action in his defense becomes "fair".

Because to them, no matter how bad Donald Trump is, Democrats are worse. I'm confident in saying he could literally start killing people and the posters here on ATS would defend him as long as those he killed were Democrats. All a person has to do is read through the threads here to come to that conclusion. It wasn't that long ago that people on here were saying Heather Heyer got what she deserved when she was mowed down and killed by a white supremacist in Charlottesville.

I don't see any way to compromise with people like that. And I haven't really seen anything since then that makes me believe they've had a change of heart.

The time for compromising with people who want you dead is long past. Especially if they want you dead over something as transitory as American politics.

a reply to: incoserv

This is a full minded representation of the issue presented by our OP. I like your response because I agree with it to a degree. So for the sake of this thread I will try to add, or subtract from what you have offered.

Justice requires measurement against a transcendent, established, immutable standard of what is right or wrong. For that standard to exist, there must be a transcendent, immutable point of reference.

I recognize this as a valid understanding, that human societies that prosper have had an established standard by which wrong and right are followed. However, these ''established standards are not transcendent or immutable but rather only held as being so. Cross referencing societies through history demonstrate that while established standards are necessary, the transcendent and immutable vary greatly from culture to culture across the breath of space and time in our history.

So right there we already have an grand example of ''relativism'' at work. The established standards based on the transcendent in India was based on a vastly different ''transcendent'' in ancient Mayan culture.

Once a society abandons the idea of any transcendent, immutable point of reference (i.e, descends into the dark pit of moral relativism), there is nothing to measure justice against, so it becomes a matter of fairness.

Again I agree but in my thinking take it further. That, or rather ''those'' immutable points of reference while working well for cultures that are isolated from one another do not fair so well when those cultures begin to come into contact with one another and start intermingling. The immutables of each can be seen by those who have the eyes begin to be seen as not so immutable and the relativism of them becomes more evident and the established standards begin to break down.

In this light, I don't see the ''moral relativism as a '' dark pit'' but rather as a step for individuals away from old and false immutables in order to take into account a wider and possibly truer sense of immutable truth. While this ''dark pit'' as you call it would always seem to bring forth chaos, it is in that that the moral relativism can shine and help establish a more encompassing sense of the transcendent. Because for me at least this is what it is all about anyway, moving towards a fuller sense of our being within this whole picture.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
The minute we monetized lawmaking it was over.

Justice for profit INC.

The Lady has lost her blinders !

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: FyreByrd


I'm not altogether convinced that justice and fairness are the same thing. What do you think.

They are not.

Care to share more on the subject?

Without justice there is no order.

Justice is not perfect, but it is the best we have for resolving the conflicts that develop. When I imagine a world without justice it becomes a disorganized chaotic mess, apocalyptic survival of the fittest. Within this world there will still be laws that step back in time to the dark ages. A regression of civilization.

I know the deep state runs a lot of things these days in the way they do. They play by a different set of rules designed to maintain their order. This self focused power is akin to the centralized power of communism that feeds of the community. But is this suppression of technology and power really at the benefit of global order, or just maintains the current order?

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: FyreByrd

... I'm not altogether convinced that justice and fairness are the same thing. What do you think. ...

This is a question with theological ramifications as well. I often say that God is not fair, but He is always just.

Fairness is a very subjective concept. Ask two Americans - a lifelong welfare recipient and a hardworking taxpayer who's never received public aid - what is "fair" in regards to the social safety net and you'll get two very different answers to the question of fairness. The recipient thinks that it's fair to receive taxpayer funded assistance. The working man thinks that it's fair that he be allowed to keep what he's worked for, offer social aid from his own pocket as he sees fit, and make the recipient find a job and work for his keep. In that case, what is just?

Justice requires measurement against a transcendent, established, immutable standard of what is right or wrong. For that standard to exist, there must be a transcendent, immutable point of reference. Once a society abandons the idea of any transcendent, immutable point of reference (i.e, descends into the dark pit of moral relativism), there is nothing to measure justice against, so it becomes a matter of fairness. We each define fairness according to our own point of view and our own objectives, so there is now no way to define what is just.

The progressive left hates the president and are convinced that he is a danger to their own philosophy and agenda, so any action to remove him becomes "fair," if not just or honest or true. Moral relativism reigns supreme, truth and justice be damned.
:

I think the concept of fairness is simpler than that. It has to be in order for it to have any meaning across space and time. and in that sense it is perhaps a theological question.

John Rawls takes a stab at it...

The original position is a central feature of John Rawls's social contract account of justice, “justice as fairness,” set forth in A Theory of Justice (TJ).

The original position is designed to be a fair and impartial point of view that is to be adopted in our reasoning about fundamental principles of justice.Feb 27, 1996 Original Position (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The strictly theological viewpoint, (i.e. some holy book tells us what is fair) is too culturally constrained to be a universal concept and hence will only state in a homogenized society.

As a thought problem, I'm seeing (just now) fairness as the treatment/attitude/action towards and person and/or thing with out regard to any subjective trait, identity, belief of the object of fairness. This requires, in pactice, that we know nothing of the other and have no prejudices towards any peoples. An objective (idealistic) definition of fair has to remove all subjective criteria if it is to be valid as a starting point. It also requires that the 'judger of fairness' assumes that all people/things react in just the same manner as he/she would.

Fairness is, maybe, always treating everyone the same. That being life treating everyone always the same - which may actually be true. People are subjective but life it'self isn't.

Thanks for the thinking.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: incoserv

This is a full minded representation of the issue presented by our OP. I like your response because I agree with it to a degree. So for the sake of this thread I will try to add, or subtract from what you have offered.

Justice requires measurement against a transcendent, established, immutable standard of what is right or wrong. For that standard to exist, there must be a transcendent, immutable point of reference.

I recognize this as a valid understanding, that human societies that prosper have had an established standard by which wrong and right are followed. However, these ''established standards are not transcendent or immutable but rather only held as being so. Cross referencing societies through history demonstrate that while established standards are necessary, the transcendent and immutable vary greatly from culture to culture across the breath of space and time in our history.

So right there we already have an grand example of ''relativism'' at work. The established standards based on the transcendent in India was based on a vastly different ''transcendent'' in ancient Mayan culture.

Once a society abandons the idea of any transcendent, immutable point of reference (i.e, descends into the dark pit of moral relativism), there is nothing to measure justice against, so it becomes a matter of fairness.

Again I agree but in my thinking take it further. That, or rather ''those'' immutable points of reference while working well for cultures that are isolated from one another do not fair so well when those cultures begin to come into contact with one another and start intermingling. The immutables of each can be seen by those who have the eyes begin to be seen as not so immutable and the relativism of them becomes more evident and the established standards begin to break down.

In this light, I don't see the ''moral relativism as a '' dark pit'' but rather as a step for individuals away from old and false immutables in order to take into account a wider and possibly truer sense of immutable truth. While this ''dark pit'' as you call it would always seem to bring forth chaos, it is in that that the moral relativism can shine and help establish a more encompassing sense of the transcendent. Because for me at least this is what it is all about anyway, moving towards a fuller sense of our being within this whole picture.

Forgive my 'quoting' your entire post - but it does point out the difficulties with this issue in this time.

If there can be no truly objective definition of fairness, with a commonly acknowledged source, as you say, then we run into the chaos of untempered subjectivity.

Thanks for the thinking.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I'm not altogether convinced that justice and fairness are the same thing. What do you think.

Justice is an archetypal concept. It is a much deeper dive than Fairness.

originally posted by: kwakakev
Without justice there is no order.

Justice is not perfect, but it is the best we have for resolving the conflicts that develop. When I imagine a world without justice it becomes a disorganized chaotic mess, apocalyptic survival of the fittest. Within this world there will still be laws that step back in time to the dark ages. A regression of civilization.

I know the deep state runs a lot of things these days in the way they do. They play by a different set of rules designed to maintain their order. This self focused power is akin to the centralized power of communism that feeds of the community. But is this suppression of technology and power really at the benefit of global order, or just maintains the current order?

Let's keep this apolitical because it is apolitical. It's fundamental.

Justice and fairness are often used as synonyms, but I have never found that to be the case (and it may be a shortcoming of the English language). I've always looked at Justice more as redress for 'unfairness' of the past. Which brings us back to that axiom of fairness to begin with and to a supranatural source of some type to provide the basis.

For an example (while good be considered political as anything having to do with people can be) take reparations of any kind.

Are they fair - certainly not - but are they just - maybe.

The reparations imposed on Germany after WWI lead inexorably to WWII. They were punitive.
Reparations for slavery - they could be considered a means of Blacks attaining some form of fair standing in todays society.

I just don't know. Please keep the thoughts coming. It's helping me with ideas that have come to the fore now and again.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Justice is rarely a fair process. This is why Judges do have some leeway in certain sentencing. Rarely do they apply good judgement when exerting the leeway given, as in the "affluenza teen" who drunk driving killed 4 people and walked away from it unpunished. I think people on both sides would settle for one justice and one justice for all. Why should one individual who lies during an investigation be charged and another go unprosecuted ?

There are indeed two separate justice systems, divided between rich and poor. That we need to change and the same with mandatory sentencing, either have mandatories for all crimes or have none. The different guidelines between possession of powder coc aine and the crack version are ridiculous

a reply to: FyreByrd

Is justice always punitive? Or can it be empowering in some manner?

originally posted by: underwerks
The time for compromising with people who want you dead is long past.

Well ... okay then. I guess it'll be "fair and just" when someone doesn't compromise with you. Hope you're ready when you look that day in the eyes.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Which brings us back to that axiom of fairness to begin with and to a supranatural source of some type to provide the basis.

Are you looking for a mathematical definition of love? Perhaps some framework of extraterrestrial diplomacy? Maybe just an easy way to make a tough decision? How do we treat the other species we cohabit this planet with as for what is fair. We hurt, kill and eat them. We also manage, support and take care of them as well.

Is the case around the band the Creedence Clearwater Revival even just or fair? The band got drunk one night, signed some contract they did not understand and refused to work after that. There was no fair trade in the terms and conditions of this contract. It was not fair and even being just is highly questionable.

King Solomon had a reputation of being fair, it took a lot of wisdom to achieve this. As for what is fair is a higher standard for what is just. Every decision the courts have made is just, not all of them are fair as well. We can all try and justify our actions, even when we do wrong and make mistakes. To do what is fair we have to stand up to our responsibilities.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: FyreByrd

Which brings us back to that axiom of fairness to begin with and to a supranatural source of some type to provide the basis.

Are you looking for a mathematical definition of love? Perhaps some framework of extraterrestrial diplomacy? Maybe just an easy way to make a tough decision? How do we treat the other species we cohabit this planet with as for what is fair. We hurt, kill and eat them. We also manage, support and take care of them as well.

Is the case around the band the Creedence Clearwater Revival even just or fair? The band got drunk one night, signed some contract they did not understand and refused to work after that. There was no fair trade in the terms and conditions of this contract. It was not fair and even being just is highly questionable.

King Solomon had a reputation of being fair, it took a lot of wisdom to achieve this. As for what is fair is a higher standard for what is just. Every decision the courts have made is just, not all of them are fair as well. We can all try and justify our actions, even when we do wrong and make mistakes. To do what is fair we have to stand up to our responsibilities.

No - I am simply looking for other points of view. In order to deepen my understanding. Thank you.

a reply to: FyreByrd

then we run into the chaos of untempered subjectivity.

Precisely. And that is why I used the word ''chaos''. And it IS a risk, but that risk is, I think, forced upon us by environmental evolution. I have found reason to believe that adaptation has been the key to humanities survival. We have shown an ability to adapt to various extremes of climatic environments as well as resource allotments. We have managed to merge cultures and deeply held religious training as well as forced social conditions in response to developing technologies in the past.

All of those have not been easy but our tribes and civilizations have continued on. And though those past adaptations were much more ''locally'' accomplished as compared to our current state of global adaptive needs I have reason to hope that we can do so on this level as well. It will not be easy.