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"?

[WinePusher]

First, let me say that this is a good debate topic.

Im glad you think so There are 5 more where that came from. Tell your friends.

I look foward to the others.

If by blind you mean that justice should be applied fairly regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, gender and age; then I say yes.

But if there is a case against a group that is oppressed and harassed greatly by the prosecuting group (take examples from Mexico's high and low class), should justice serve blindly or with a bias towards the oppressed group? For example, a court ruling on a recent murder on a genocidal war-lord.

I do not agree that Hispanics and other minority groups are treated unfairly under the law. Just look at the New Haven Firefighters case and the lack of prosecution aganist black panthar indimidators to see the exact opposite. Justice should not be applied less strictly on those who are considered "oppressed" groups.

A law that has the consent of the abiding people, was created and drafted in an open dialouge, and does not inhibit any of the people's primary freedoms or civil rights.

So what about a law saying its legal to fornicate in the streets? Is it merely a just law if all agree to it, passed through open dialouge, and doesn't abridge a freedom or civil right?

Well, this is getting into very legal technical stuff because fornicating on the streets is imposing sexual views on others who may not wish to see them. But yes, I stand by what I said, it is a just law if it is passed through open dialouge and doesn't abridge freedom.

A punishment that is equivalent to the crime committed, and was determined based solely on crimes of the person.

So a rapist should be raped as equivalent response to the crime?

No, as the crime beng punished is rape so it would be ironic and hypocritical to punish a crime with another crime. I mean that a traffic law violator shouldn't be imprisoned for life and a serial killer shouldn't have to pay a monentary fine.

[JoshB]

I do not agree that Hispanics and other minority groups are treated unfairly under the law. Just look at the New Haven Firefighters case and the lack of prosecution aganist black panthar indimidators to see the exact opposite. Justice should not be applied less strictly on those who are considered "oppressed" groups.

I would like to say that I meant the judicial system IN Mexico...

And I do want feedback on my last hypothetical. Would you charge someone with murder for killing a genocidal war-lord?

Well, this is getting into very legal technical stuff because fornicating on the streets is imposing sexual views on others who may not wish to see them. But yes, I stand by what I said, it is a just law if it is passed through open dialouge and doesn't abridge freedom.

So you would allow it if it was passed under those conditions? Isn't this implying that "just laws" are relative?

No, as the crime beng punished is rape so it would be ironic and hypocritical to punish a crime with another crime. I mean that a traffic law violator shouldn't be imprisoned for life and a serial killer shouldn't have to pay a monentary fine.

Your saying that the response should be imprisonment proportional to the crime committed?

[Flail]

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"?

What is deemed 'just' must be equitable. Equity is the equalizer of all matters in controversy. Equitable principles are those which balance circumstances with fairness regardless of status, creed,color, gender or ethnicity and is, in essence, blind'. A 'just' law is that which is agreed upon by the majority of the people of a society so long as it's provisions to not violate the rights of the minority. Punishment must be equated to the degree of harm caused and the intention of the wrongdoer; the greater the harm and more evil the intention, the greater the punishment. The symbol of justice is apt; the blindfolded lady balancing scales.

[JoshB]

What is deemed 'just' must be equitable. Equity is the equalizer of all matters in controversy. Equitable principles are those which balance circumstances with fairness regardless of status, creed,color, gender or ethnicity and is, in essence, blind'. A 'just' law is that which is agreed upon by the majority of the people of a society so long as it's provisions to not violate the rights of the minority. Punishment must be equated to the degree of harm caused and the intention of the wrongdoer; the greater the harm and more evil the intention, the greater the punishment. The symbol of justice is apt; the blindfolded lady balancing scales.

So there is a definite form of justice? As in justice has to be blind and balanced in order to be justice?

And I want feedback on my hypothetical: For a man who kills a genocidal war-lord, should we charge him with the sentence murder carries?

And on another note, what sentence should murder carry? What is a "just sentence"?

[WinePusher]

I would like to say that I meant the judicial system IN Mexico...

Well, my lack of knowledge of the mexican judicial system is inadequate, so I won't comment on that

And I do want feedback on my last hypothetical. Would you charge someone with murder for killing a genocidal war-lord?

Well, thats a difficult question. I don't think that it is permissable for one to take it into their own hands and decide that killing a genocidal war lord is a decision they are capable of doing. There was a House episode that captured this, where Chase killed a patient who was an african genocidal dictator, but as for my opinion, I don't know.

So you would allow it if it was passed under those conditions? Isn't this implying that "just laws" are relative?

Sure, all laws are developed based on their cultural influences.

Your saying that the response should be imprisonment proportional to the crime committed?

Absolutly. Btw, where are the other questions??????

[McCulloch]

1. Should justice be blind?

Blind is a metaphor. Justice is blind, is merely another way of saying that to be just is to be impartial. A just rule is one which applies to everyone equally in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, male and female. That our societies be just is a cornerstone of Enlightenment thinking. Christianity made remarkable progress towards the adoption of this kind of justice, but in my opinion fell short of the mark. The Christian God is not a just God and historically the Christian experience when in power, has not been one of blind justice.

2. What is a "just law"?

A just law is an ideal to strive for. It probably cannot be perfectly attained, life being as complex as it is. However, we can continually strive to make what we have more just.

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?

Justice is a purely human concept. While it is very useful in the ordering of our societies, it would be a mistake to expect to see anything like justice in the natural universe or to project the concept to the supernatural. We learn two fundamentally important ethical principles in kindergarten. Empathy - the other person's feelings are as real and as important as mine. Fairness - the rules apply equally to everyone. These two principles are the underpinning of every well functioning society.

4. What is a "just punishment"?

Any punishment which is either vindictive or retributive, in my view cannot be just.

[Cathar1950]

1. Should justice be blind?

Blind is a metaphor. Justice is blind, is merely another way of saying that to be just is to be impartial. A just rule is one which applies to everyone equally in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, male and female. That our societies be just is a cornerstone of Enlightenment thinking. Christianity made remarkable progress towards the adoption of this kind of justice, but in my opinion fell short of the mark. The Christian God is not a just God and historically the Christian experience when in power, has not been one of blind justice.

2. What is a "just law"?

A just law is an ideal to strive for. It probably cannot be perfectly attained, life being as complex as it is. However, we can continually strive to make what we have more just.

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?

Justice is a purely human concept. While it is very useful in the ordering of our societies, it would be a mistake to expect to see anything like justice in the natural universe or to project the concept to the supernatural. We learn two fundamentally important ethical principles in kindergarten. Empathy - the other person's feelings are as real and as important as mine. Fairness - the rules apply equally to everyone. These two principles are the underpinning of every well functioning society.

4. What is a "just punishment"?

Any punishment which is either vindictive or retributive, in my view cannot be just.

I tend to think justice is based in our relationships and extended to our cultures.
Reciprocal altruism has has an other side called justice or fairness to altruism.

We can see it in other animals that are social.
Robert Wright tells a story where one chimps or ape was getting beat up on and trying to get help from its companion. The other didn't respond so it went after his friend for failing to help now that is justice. Then there is kin selection.

[JoshB]

And I do want feedback on my last hypothetical. Would you charge someone with murder for killing a genocidal war-lord?

Well, thats a difficult question. I don't think that it is permissable for one to take it into their own hands and decide that killing a genocidal war lord is a decision they are capable of doing. There was a House episode that captured this, where Chase killed a patient who was an african genocidal dictator, but as for my opinion, I don't know.

I saw that one too Well then I would think this to be the thing we need to work on. I think its honestly a matter of ends and means...or rather, is it just to do injustice for greater justice? So if the genocidal war-lord

So you would allow it if it was passed under those conditions? Isn't this implying that "just laws" are relative?

Sure, all laws are developed based on their cultural influences.

But if a culture is developed to view to see another culture inferior to the point of seeing them more as animals, would it be just to legalize the enslavement of that culture since it is mutually agreed upon, and doesn't trample any of the citizens rights (remember, the inferior culture is not a citizen of the 'superior' one)?

Your saying that the response should be imprisonment proportional to the crime committed?

Absolutely. Btw, where are the other questions??????

1 - How do we find out what proportional imprisonment is and be correct?

2 - I want at least 15-20 comments on this thread before I start another Socratic one...

[Zzyzx]

.
JoshB,

I have difficulty answering some of these questions, perhaps because I am not particularly philosophical (which also accounts for this being probably my first post in the Philosophy sub-forum).

1. Should justice be blind?
Yes – meaning that ALL must be treated equally under the law. No person’s possession or lack of wealth, status, position, influence, connection, etc must be allowed influence in any way application of a just law.

2. What is a "just law"?
It seems to me as though a just law must treat all people equally, it must avoid violating basic rights of any person (“life, liberty and pursuit of happiness� in the US according to founding documents), it must be in accordance with and consistent with higher ranking laws, it must not allow one to dominate other against their will or to take advantage of others by force, fraud or deception.

All laws limit freedom of someone. If a law accords favorable treatment to one person or group, it necessarily denies equally favorable treatment of others. If it gives money or tax exemption to one, it must take equal amounts from others (plus administrative costs).

A just law, in my opinion, must serve the overall good of society – without unnecessarily limiting basic individual freedom.

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?
The term “supreme justice� has no meaning to me. Each group of people that enacts “rules� or “laws� designates the highest LEVEL of decision-making. I do not recognize any such thing as “supreme justice�, and thus, the “middle point� has no meaning to me. It seems reasonable to avoid extremes – without attempting to determine or define the “middle�.

4. What is a "just punishment"?
Idealistically, “just punishment� might be barely enough to discourage most (undefined term) infractions, without retribution or revenge. I do not accept the “eye for an eye� concept. However, if a person damages another person or their livelihood or their property, it seems just to require fair compensation. Loss of an eye might disqualify a person from their occupation with resultant reduction in income, which should be compensated fully (in my opinion).

In the case of rape, I am not sure that subjecting a rapist to at least the possibility of homosexual rape while incarcerated wouldn’t be “just�. A person convicted of murder should probably be imprisoned for life without possibility of release, in my opinion. I hesitate to accept the death penalty because there is a very real chance that the person is not guilty, even though convicted (and death is irreversible while release is possible).

I am opposed to “victimless crimes� and to legislation of morality – and am therefore adamantly opposed to “the war on drugs�. It is atrocious that half of the US prison population (largest in the world in absolute number and percentage of the population) is for infraction of drug prohibition laws. That, in my opinion, is unjust, unwise and a needless waste of lives and resources.

[JoshB]

JoshB,

I have difficulty answering some of these questions, perhaps because I am not particularly philosophical (which also accounts for this being probably my first post in the Philosophy sub-forum).

Im honored to be your first And this really is a cool sub-forum once you get the hang of it.

1. Should justice be blind?

Yes – meaning that ALL must be treated equally under the law. No person’s possession or lack of wealth, status, position, influence, connection, etc must be allowed influence in any way application of a just law.

I personally agree with the idea of blind justice, so it is hard for me to give opposition. I only have this hypothetical: If a man kills another man who is a genocidal war-lord, should we sentence the killer to murder charges? Or should Lady Justice lift her blindfold and see that the man has killed someone who has killed hundreds of thousands?

2. What is a "just law"?

It seems to me as though a just law must treat all people equally, it must avoid violating basic rights of any person (“life, liberty and pursuit of happiness� in the US according to founding documents), it must be in accordance with and consistent with higher ranking laws, it must not allow one to dominate other against their will or to take advantage of others by force, fraud or deception.

All laws limit freedom of someone. If a law accords favorable treatment to one person or group, it necessarily denies equally favorable treatment of others. If it gives money or tax exemption to one, it must take equal amounts from others (plus administrative costs).

A just law, in my opinion, must serve the overall good of society – without unnecessarily limiting basic individual freedom.

Out of this great answer comes a great question: how do we know a law serves the overall good of society? Cars are not a basic right, and kill a large amount of people each year. Would it be a "just law" and "in the service of the overall good of society" if we outlawed cars?

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?

The term “supreme justice� has no meaning to me. Each group of people that enacts “rules� or “laws� designates the highest LEVEL of decision-making. I do not recognize any such thing as “supreme justice�, and thus, the “middle point� has no meaning to me. It seems reasonable to avoid extremes – without attempting to determine or define the “middle�.

Good point. I have no opposition.

4. What is a "just punishment"?

Idealistically, “just punishment� might be barely enough to discourage most (undefined term) infractions, without retribution or revenge. I do not accept the “eye for an eye� concept. However, if a person damages another person or their livelihood or their property, it seems just to require fair compensation. Loss of an eye might disqualify a person from their occupation with resultant reduction in income, which should be compensated fully (in my opinion).

Should compensation be provided by the crime committer? Say if one man kills another mans sheep; should the crime committer reimburse the victim with another sheep, go to jail, or both?

In the case of rape, I am not sure that subjecting a rapist to at least the possibility of homosexual rape while incarcerated wouldn’t be “just�. A person convicted of murder should probably be imprisoned for life without possibility of release, in my opinion. I hesitate to accept the death penalty because there is a very real chance that the person is not guilty, even though convicted (and death is irreversible while release is possible).

Imprisonment without a chance of release...If it wasn't for appellate courts Id have a counter argument...But what is an equivalent/sufficient punishment if not taking the eye for an eye philosophy? If a rapist is raped, he then knows the discomfort he caused, and will probably be deterred from committing that crime again...then again, that result would depend on the person (the crime committer might be ok with that or just be downright persistent...). So again we are at a wall: What is a just punishment? Does it have to deter a criminal from committing a second crime?

I agree with the victimless crimes opinion, but I think some of it can be argued by my argument in #2.