The best definition was given by Cicero.
Justice is, "The settled intention of rendering unto each person that which is his due."
2007-01-17 03:06:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Biased morality. The link that makes them all alike is the defined X factor of choosing what is morally correct. For some that means killing those who are in violation. But the main faculty of justice is the fact that it is based on an opinion that there is perceived opposition to whatever "good" truly is. Such being so that, to my way of thinking justice will never be truly viable. Is a person starving to death, who steals for food, injust? To the justice system, yes he is. And that's where the conflicts lie. There is a perceived guideline of what right is, which in other words means beneficial to society, and what wrong is, meaning degrading to society. And regardless of one's personal standpoint against it, those rules always come first within each and every governing body. Everyone is looking out for their own best interest in the end and for this, I believe it best for one to attempt to understand this and help the person for mutual benefit, rather than persecuting them for attempting to fix a problem the perceivably ''wrong'' way. You'll notice how police only have a mentality of "good people" and "bad people". They don't have a faculty of "crying for help" or "desperate" and this is why. They're not trained to be psychiatrists. They have cuffs and a gun for a reason. To get the Bad, as they put it, off of the streets, so the good can live safely. Perhaps if there was more time truly spent helping people and less time persecuting, there'd be less need for jails and such. In a world where everyone is taken care of, there is no need for jails, simply asylums. For if someone is being fully accomodated and yet still doing wrong dispite their benefits, clearly they are not in their right mind. Perhaps justice is just a way for the governing bodies to get rid of the trash in society so to speak, quickly and effectively rather than doing the perceived moral thing, which would be to help them. So that's a bit hypocritical on the governing aspects of society from that way of thinking. In youth, I'd always had a problem with the Dean system. I never understood how making someone waste time afterschool would help them not to be five seconds late the next time. I thought them insane for truly thinking that that could help someone. And even worse, if you didn't respond to that punishment, they removed you from school totally. I found that completely absurd. How could that help someone? Then I found similarities between the Deans system and the Justice system. Their efforts are never truly meant to help anything but make everything clearer for the rest of the groupage. In other words, in a world where everything is basically clockwork. Any hampering of the regular routines will account in your removal from the equation. Rather than caring about the person, they simply look for the shortest distance to order. And although it isn't right, it certainly is the quickest and most efficient. So in that sense, one might hope that people realize this, and realize that the world is in no way shape or form meant to accomodate anyone, regardless of their current situation or emotion, but rather to continue on it's trajectory without fear or interruption. Most of the time, the emotions are too much. The feelings of oppression and hurt and neglect are too much to bear, and the person in question soon realizes that in a world that seems so terrible they could give a ____ whether or not they're living in it. And that's where suicidal acts and other crime comes from. Desperation mainly. But in a government's attempt to be orderly and efficient rather than benevolent, it's simply how things work until a large demographic in America decides to up their standards and having things changed. Like they did with African American Rights and Women's Suffrage before that.
2007-01-17 12:32:55
·
answer #2
·
answered by Answerer 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Justice, or a condition thereof, is the ideal state of humanity: a morally-correct state of things and persons. Whether this ideal is attainable is an open question. According to most of the many theories of justice, it is overwhelmingly important. For instance, John Rawls claims that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought."]
2007-01-17 11:12:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by Linda 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The universal meaning would have to be total fairness. This would be less than ideal for us presently.
2007-01-17 11:21:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by Immortal Cordova 6
·
0⤊
0⤋