Peace is not simply the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice?

Question

do you agree? why or why not?

Answer 1

I agree and can add a couple more points to ponder.

The absence of fear, the presence of opportunity, the freedom to travel, work, live, and worship how you choose (as long as no one else is affected.)

There's a lot to peace. Many things have to be both in place and functioning before peace can be 'declared.'

It's similar on a personal level. You don't just 'get' inner peace, you aspire toward it. Lots of things have to be in their proper place for one to truly feel at peace with themselves.

Answer 2

Peace is a temporary moment is a continuous war environment.
There are many things written throughout the years on this. Even more than the studies done on wars, and why man essentially always will be in a state of war.

Of course one can disagree with that premise, and believe that mans continuing state is that of being at peace.

Peace is so- good. Why cant we have it all the time? Why does it have to be paid for by our troops in battle?

The peace we so clearly enjoy today came with the sacrifices of men and women almost 60 years ago. They have placed their own dreams aside to guard the rest of the flock.

Was there justice in the war they had fought for? The justice could have been the renewal of the absence of conflict, and continued peace.

Therefore, my answer should be yes and yes.

The first indicator that peace is present is when the legal system is in place and some semblance of law and order is achieved.

Answer 3

I disagree. And my disagreement hinges on the meaning of justice.

Justice is when people get what they deserve. Not more (that's charity). Not less. Justice can actually sometimes be completely vicious, because sometimes there are crimes that people commit which DESERVE that kind of payback. And this is why some crimes outrage us so - some deeds are so monstrous that it is impossible to level the punishment that would be just.

If a nation abuses its citizens, is it just to let them? If a man kills a dozen other men, is it just to allow him to live his life, no matter how confined? Most people's conceptions of peace cannot include beatings, imprisonment, war, and the like. So if justice is present, peace is impossible until no one commits any wrongs.

Of course, there is another way to get peace - by throwing justice out the window. But I think most people would find that an unsatisfactory solution as well. So it goes.

Answer 4

Peace for me is a stalemate to conflict. Because on the one hand people have peace because they can't act when they can. Justice helps a lot, but it is hard to think there will ever be a way to live without conflict. This is just another way of life.
There is no life without conflict. And there is no peace without conflict, this is a paradox.

Answer 5

the first good question I have seen in awhile....you are right, "peace" does not mean "absence of conflict." War really starts in the hearts of men, with hatred, apathy, lust, greed, etc. All of these things start to project onto others, and then there are factions, divisions, power plays, etc. which lead to war.

There is never peace without the healing that justice brings. If a criminal is judged for his or her actions, that actually brings more "peace" to the criminal, because he or she is held accountable for his or her actions. The criminal then repents and is healed. THAT is peace - even if the criminal is in prison, and there is conflict over this. Ultimately, it is only Jesus' sacrifice on the cross for our sins that can bring true peace.

Answer 6

Interesting thought.