What if someone did injustice but believes he has done justice?

Question

Everyone has different perceptions of justice. One person may do a deed and call it a crime while someone else may see it as an act of justice. If so, how would God punish the person? Justice is very subjective and therefore everyone has their own ideas of whats right and wrong.

Answer 1

I think the explanation from a believer would be that human justice, as practiced, on earth is subjective and relativistic, but God's justice is absolute and infallible.

Answer 2

Great question! There is a general idea of morals that most people would say are right or wrong like; stealing, killing, greed ec...is wrong. Where loveing, self-sacrafice for another, giving, etc.. are right or good. So who decided that these are generally what right and wrong is? Why is stealing something from someone so that you get more money or whatever it may be wrong? Who says so.
Within these general ideas there is more detailed morality that is subject to change from one individual to the next. If there is no god then what we say is right and wrong is merely subject to whatever government you live in. Which means there is no actual right and wrong.
But if there is a God then he is the one who draws the line. He is the one who said what was and what is right and wrong, and it would be to our best interest to find out what it is that he says right and wrong to be and abide by it.
C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity, stating that we could not have gotten these ideas of right and wrong unless there is a god by saying
-"How could you ever know that a crooked line is in fact crooked if you never had a straight line to compare it too?"
Well God drew us the straight line.

Answer 3

First of all you assume that there is a God. Then you assume that this God may vindictively "punish" a "wrong-doer" in an act to "teach" the fallible human right from wrong. Do you not see the irony here. The question could be "What if God did injustice but believes he has done justice".

Answer 4

Well there is the Justice and Law of God, and the event must be seen from all sides, and since He is the creator of all, including laws, then you can expect that if the act has a righteous purpose then that would be good but if it is immoral or incorrect then it's not justice.

Answer 5

The notion of justice depends precisely on the belief that it's not subjective. Its details may be unknowable or knowable only vaguely, but subjuctive "justice" is usually vindictiveness.
___Years ago, Catherine McKinnon, a "feminist legal scholar", proposed that the legal system was too impersonal and didn't take into account the individual details of cases, so that the abstract principles ought to be taken out of the law. Of course this is the height of absurdity, since without the abstract principle, there's no law. Without it, the outcomes of cases depend on the particular, subjective feelings, moods, prejudices, bad-hair days, marital problems, and painful boils of whomever happens to be on the bench. At best, law without abstract principle would be whimsical.
___Just because we can't pin down what justice precisely, like pi to 100 decimals or the height of Mt. Washington, we don't have to throw in the towel to subjectivism. (Subjectivism as an intellectual fad is getting a bit stale these days, anyway; it's about 300 years old.) Justice is an ideal, based on the notion that there are appropriate consequences for person's behaviors. Another popular version reduces it to fairness. In any case, these approaches yield fairly consistent results. The basic principles are fairly well agreed upon, and can be observed as a sociological fact, if nothing else. At any rate, on the basics, subjectivism isn't required. Around the margins, though, the details are subject to interpretation. For one thing, they are more numerous than the main principle (say, murder) and more unmanageable in terms of the reasoning involved. Criteria for extenuations are debatable. And so forth. They come to appear central because there's no point in debating the central principles; everybody takes them for granted, so the action focusses on the marginal details. And these, in their inmanageability, are more likely to be decided by intuitive means, ("intuitive" with regard to habitual and general presuppositions about human affairs, not "intuitive" in the sense of instantaneous perception). These are subjective means.
___But these subjective aspects can be examined and submit to potential consensus. That is, we can examine our feelings about something, and decide that some are appropriate, and some not.
___Then there's the action of a self-fulfilling prophecy regarding subjectivism. If you're indoctrinated to believe that all truths are subjective, then how likely are you to invest years of hard work into finding a truth that transcends individuals? But if you're taught that all truths are only marginally subjective, and that the margin is elastic, then you might put some effort into keeping the margin as small as possible, and to strive to APPROACH an ideal of transcendent, transpersonal truth, in this case, a truth about justice.
___(Just watch a subjectivist backtrack when some injury is done to him or her, and the perpetrator denies it. THAT truth isn't subjective.)
___Kierkegaard had a concept called "willed ignorance" that had to do with dodging the work of facing the truth, especially in cases of hard truths about oneself. If the question above is a means of rationalizing some bad act, then the subjectivism is just willed ignorance.
___Civil disobedience can provide some interesting cases, but if one can stand back from the culture and examine its biases tend toward self-serving, self-righteous, and self-congratulatory demonstrations, (HEY! LOOK AT ME. I'VE GOT THE MORAL HIGH GROUND!), and break free of conventional socio-ethical wisdom, one can have a serious debate with oneself, in private, with no cheering section, about whether doing one thing right justifies doing another that is wrong. And proper research should include a history of similar cases, to see which features characterize the ones that, in retrospect, look silly, and which characterize the ones that look courageous.
___Be careful of this subjective justice crap. Often as not, it's just a cowardly cop out.

Answer 6

then sum1 did justice and thought it was justice...

thats hardly a question...........

as for the god thing, well thats a silly thing to ask pple on y answers, ul just have to wait and see, assuming he exists

and most pple who point to bible and say rules are set are choosing their own interpretation of those rules and this still applies, because most of them are supporting the government which does not take the no kill command literally

and even if u want to take commandments literally, sum1 else cna point to koran or any other religious book, none of them hold any more water than anything i cud scratch on a piece of paper

Answer 7

Most of us have no earthly idea what is "just" or "unjust", because we have no objective supreme value. We claim to have subjective supreme values, but since they are subjective, they can morph into anything, thus we can rationalize anything we do as being "just".

Answer 8

If you believe in GOD you will find the answer .

Answer 9

God has set the rules, read the Bible.

Answer 10

There is no god, problem solved