jus·tice
ˈjəstəs/
noun
1.
just behavior or treatment.
The definition supplied by Google is very vague and even using the root word in the definition, which was a “no no” back when I had to define words back in elementary and middle school. When looking up the word for just, you get a much better definition:
just
jəst/
adjective
1.
based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.
Even though this supplies a much better definition, the definition is equally vague due to the whole morals thing. Morals are easy to circumvent because there are certain underlying factors that can be allowed for their dismissal as in self-defense for assault or the threat of something the starvation of your family for stealing, but should justice be equally easy to circumvent? The question is whether justice should have those grey areas that morals all too often do? Or is justice just as grey as morals? Are morals the same thing as justice or does justice merely follow morals? All too often it seems as though people believe that justice is an Oak tree that refuses to bend.
Personally, I think the idea of justice is a juicy contradiction that tends to be able to fold and stretch to any length depending on how good your lawyer is. There is no clear meaning of justice as long as what is just relies on morals because there are too many grey areas with morals, and with no clear meaning, a very smart woman or man can bend it to one’s own purposes. Justice needs some sort of meaning that can’t be open to interpretation, a clear, well-defined meaning that is able to withstand even Socrates’ questioning that is accepted across all cultures, but that would be a little too ideal.
I agree whole-Heartedly with this post. I believe no matter how hard we try to come up with a universal definition for justice we will not succeed. As you mentioned in the post, there are to many grey areas. Justice is a circumstantial subject, therefore the definition is merely a matter of opinion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this post as well. It is absurd that the definition is just up to anyone. It should have a cut and dry definition that is universal among us all because it is unfair to those who aren't able to bend it for their own sake.
ReplyDeleteDear Chocomunchie,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement that justice is a juicy contradiction, it is something that is supposedly based on morals but not everyone has the same morals so how exactly would you define justice? When I read your post it got me thinking of whats the best way to define justice and I even googled it but I kept getting the same answers nothing new or freshly enlightening. Then it struck me that justice was human made. Some may argue that God created justice. Then again God created human kind and human kind was made in his image, so then you can argue that God did create justice. My point is justice was created as a form of maintaining peace throughout the world.
I believe that justice is such a contradictory thing because it is something based on morals. All around the world people have different morals, so their justice system would obviously be different. Justice is as diverse as the world is with so many different people , languages, and cultures. In the end justice is simply an arguement over good and bad and how to find peace within both .