Six Socratic Questions: Question #1: What is Justice?

[JoshB]

I do feel it pertinent to tell of the origin of justice as described by Glaucon in Plato's Republic:

"...And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had the experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think they had better agree amongst themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is determined by them lawful and just....justice; it is a mean or compromise...and justice, being at the middle point, is tolerated not as good, but as the lesser evil, and honored by reason of the inability of men to do injustice."

I bring up the question "what is justice". These are questions that need to be answered:

1. Should justice be blind?

2. What is a "just law"?

3. Where lies the balance or "middle point" as described in the excerpt of Plato's Republic? Or, to rephrase, what should supreme justice be like?

4. What is a "just punishment"?

[JoshB]

I will do the next one tomorrow. But remember, these are basic questions. The only reason why this is a good OP is because this is my favorite of the 6, and have though about it often. The next will be (probably) What is Good. Or maybe What is Piety. I have 5 more left, so I have options.

To Post 16 (how do you do that link thing?)

A) So justice is relative?

B) I agree and have no opposition.

Q) And with justice apparently being relative, a standard equation is impossible.

D) Or rather, the lawn competition theory: Whoever has the most green wins.

C) But if its goal is deterrence, then wont it try to get more severe until its totally effective? Thats why I think deterrence is an effect that is different for all. Im glad to hear you have promised to legal behavior

9032) So its relative.

Im doing this randomly for laughs) Yes I agree. No opposition that I can think of.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 18:

To Post 16 (how do you do that link thing?)

The method I use is to copy/paste from the address bar in the browser. When more than one page is generated in an OP, the end of the address will include such as &start=10. The number 10 there actually represents post 11, so any time I reference a particular post I subtract 1 from the post number and use that.

I'll expand the []'s out so you can see how it looks. To make it work just don't put a space between the brackets and the tags...

[ url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 9&start=17 ] Post 18 [ /url ]

Removing the spaces, you end up with...

Post 18.

To reference a post that is on the first page of an OP, you just add the following to what was copy/pasted from the address bar...

&start=

For the first page of this OP, the address is...

h t t p : //debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14169

^notice above I expanded the http out so it wouldn't show as a link

At the end of that you put the post number minus 1...

&start=3

so you end up with...

h t t p : //debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14169&start=3

That would reference Post 4.

Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.
---------------------------------------------

A) So justice is relative?

Certainly. Ever hear a prisoner complain about a sentence being too light? Ever hear of a victim complaining about a sentence being too severe? There are of course exceptions, but for the most part it holds.

Q) And with justice apparently being relative, a standard equation is impossible.

Exactly, and for good reasons when the law considers mitigating circumstances.

D) Or rather, the lawn competition theory: Whoever has the most green wins.

Does the person get found innocent because he has money, or because his lawyer did his job? In a system where the best lawyers command the highest fees, I don't see anything immediately wrong, except to note the poor would be assumed to receive the worst 'lawyering'.

C) But if its goal is deterrence, then wont it try to get more severe until its totally effective? Thats why I think deterrence is an effect that is different for all. Im glad to hear you have promised to legal behavior

Humans being just that, deterrence is likely to never be 100% effective, even if I consider it a legitimate goal. Notice I vowed to not get caught breaking the law I was being a bit tricky with that.

[JoshB]

To Post 19


Sorry. I trailed off into something else when I said lawn competition theory...lobbyism or special interest or something...But anyways, overall I agree with your previous statement.

So:

Justice is relative.

On Justice Being Blind:

Yes, in that it should not consider issues unrelated. No, in that it should be flexible enough to consider circumstances and individuals.

On a just law:

One that seeks a proper balance between punishment, rehabilitation, and restitution to those wronged, and society as a whole.

These laws must be refined and approved by the citizens or by their democratically elected representative, else the law cannot serve the good of the society.

On a Just Punishment: Just Punishments are sentences given to a criminal that are proportional judicial actions reacting to the criminals actions. The punishment should detain the criminal for what the judicial consensus sees as an appropriate time frame. Deterrence from future crimes is a hope, but the primary goal of a Just Punishment is to penalize the crime committer for that crime.

What about corporal punishment?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 20:

What about corporal punishment?

I'm not so averse to its use in extreme cases, even to the point of the victim being involved. IMO a great way to show the perpetrator the error of his ways is to inflict on him what he inflicts on others.

[JoshB]

And now we backtrack into an eye for an eye.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 22:

And now we backtrack into an eye for an eye.

In case folks read that a different way than I am, I don't see that I'm backtracking.

If you mean the angle I propose is backtracking from current practice, I don't see why that's a relevant argument, in that it doesn't really address why it's such a bad thing to do.

If we concern ourselves with just laws, what could be more just than making the perpetrator face the same thing he did to the victim? (With previously mentioned caveats regarding circumstances.)

[justifyothers]

I do feel it pertinent to tell of the origin of justice as described by Glaucon in Plato's Republic:

"...And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had the experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think they had better agree amongst themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is determined by them lawful and just....justice; it is a mean or compromise...and justice, being at the middle point, is tolerated not as good, but as the lesser evil, and honored by reason of the inability of men to do injustice."

I bring up the question "what is justice". These are questions that need to be answered:

1. Should justice be blind?

2. What is a "just law"?

3. Where lies the balance or "middle point" as described in the excerpt of Plato's Republic? Or, to rephrase, what should supreme justice be like?

4. What is a "just punishment"?

Isn't justice kind of like beauty? ...in the eye of the beholder?

[JoshB]

In case folks read that a different way than I am, I don't see that I'm backtracking.

If you mean the angle I propose is backtracking from current practice, I don't see why that's a relevant argument, in that it doesn't really address why it's such a bad thing to do.

If we concern ourselves with just laws, what could be more just than making the perpetrator face the same thing he did to the victim? (With previously mentioned caveats regarding circumstances.)

Ok...backtracking wasn't the right word...I think I thought you stood against eye-for-an-eye philosophy in on of your former posts...but seeing how the search shows you didn't, I was wrong to say so (or just didn't look hard enough).

But I don't see how doing a crime in return of a crime would work, or how it would be just, if the punishment for breaking the law requires law-upholders to ultimately break the law....I think this argument was posed by Winepusher some time earlier...And I think with there being soooo many kinds of crimes affecting soooo many kinds of people, at some points it wouldn't be possible to use an eye-for-an-eye philosophy. I suppose thats why standard punishments (jail sentences) are used in all crimes unless circumstances deem it unnecessary.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 25:

Ok...backtracking wasn't the right word...I think I thought you stood against eye-for-an-eye philosophy in on of your former posts...but seeing how the search shows you didn't, I was wrong to say so (or just didn't look hard enough).

When confined solely to "an eye for and eye for adults that all agree should know better", I don't object. Adding other contexts and circumstances may or may not change that.

But I don't see how doing a crime in return of a crime would work, or how it would be just, if the punishment for breaking the law requires law-upholders to ultimately break the law...

Those who, while in the line of duty legally administering the eye for an eye law, are exempt at such time.

...
And I think with there being soooo many kinds of crimes affecting soooo many kinds of people, at some points it wouldn't be possible to use an eye-for-an-eye philosophy.

That's why I say a just law should be able to consider circumstances.

I suppose thats why standard punishments (jail sentences) are used in all crimes unless circumstances deem it unnecessary.

Pretty much. That is what the powers that be have determined to be just. You and I may legitimately disagree on any aspect of the law or punishment. What I consider just you may consider barbaric. What you consider barbaric I may consider too lenient, and on and on and back and forth until we reach some consensus.

[JoshB]

Hm...I seem to be agreeing with everything you say...I think we have reached an argreement on ideal justice...but...

Why do you think our judicial system doesnt use this eye-for-an-eye philosophy? Would it violate the 8th amendment?