What is Justice?

[Sculptor1]

The nice thing about defining things operationally is that they cease being abstract and vacuous.

Justice is not abstract, but subjective.

It is very much abstract, and subjective.

You just succeed in ripping the emotions out of the justice system.

Not sure that is possible.

Consequently noone feels justice is being done, but instead it is just a bureacratic process of no emotional significance.

Each judge and all juries are utterly incapable of deleting their emotions.
Most often in the US, I understand, is the bureaucracy tend to manifest in the plea bargain. The innocent accused faced with a trail which they have little chance of winning, are offered the chance to cop for a lesser crime as long as they STFU.
So much for the justice system.
It's my view that the worst part of injustice is meted out to people before they even consider a crime.

[Marvin_Edwards]

The nice thing about defining things operationally is that they cease being abstract and vacuous.

Justice is not abstract, but subjective. You just succeed in ripping the emotions out of the justice system. Consequently noone feels justice is being done, but instead it is just a bureacratic process of no emotional significance.

A Billy comes to his father saying that Tommy stole his lunch. His father finds Tommy, punches him in the face, and breaks his nose. Is that justice?

[Terrapin Station]

Justice is not abstract, but subjective. You just succeed in ripping the emotions out of the justice system. Consequently noone feels justice is being done, but instead it is just a bureacratic process of no emotional significance.

A Billy comes to his father saying that Tommy stole his lunch. His father finds Tommy, punches him in the face, and breaks his nose. Is that justice?

It depends on who you ask, of course. Since it's subjective there's not a correct answer. Personally, there are situations where I'd say that's justice--it would depend on whether Billy is being honest, on just what sort of bully Tommy is, re his history, etc., and so on.

[Terrapin Station]

That might be a goal you have in mind with it, but that's just how you think about it. It's not how everyone thinks about it.

How do you think about it?

As I noted above: "'Justice' is a subjective assessment that rewards and punishments have been reasonably and equitably distributed given the situation at hand."

If I were to say that I think of justice in terms of having a goal, I'd say that the goal is to reasonably and equitably distribute rewards and/or punishments relative to the situation at hand.

[Marvin_Edwards]

A Billy comes to his father saying that Tommy stole his lunch. His father finds Tommy, punches him in the face, and breaks his nose. Is that justice?

It depends on who you ask, of course. Since it's subjective there's not a correct answer. Personally, there are situations where I'd say that's justice--it would depend on whether Billy is being honest, on just what sort of bully Tommy is, re his history, etc., and so on.

Then, to avoid chaos, we need to come to some agreement as to what justice is supposed to accomplish. Otherwise, Tommy's father will come with a gun and shoot Billy's father. Then Billy's uncle will retaliate by killing Tommy and his family. And so on.

So, what is justice supposed to accomplish? Is there an answer to this that everyone can agree to?

[Marvin_Edwards]

How do you think about it?

As I noted above: "'Justice' is a subjective assessment that rewards and punishments have been reasonably and equitably distributed given the situation at hand."

If I were to say that I think of justice in terms of having a goal, I'd say that the goal is to reasonably and equitably distribute rewards and/or punishments relative to the situation at hand.

How do we decide what an "equitable" distribution of rewards and/or punishments would be? Are we still wallowing in subjectivity at this point? Or is there some common goal that we can all agree to?

[Pattern-chaser]

Justice is about the proper balancing of rights. This is best demonstrated in a context in which we find justice at work. All practical rights arise from agreements. We come to agree to respect and protect certain rights for each other.

Yes. And I think justice is not as much about laws and stuff as fairness, as perceived by us humans. We can accept many things, but injustice is unfair, and that annoys us more than might be obvious at first. We are very keen on justice and fairness, I think.

[Pattern-chaser]

Are we still wallowing in subjectivity at this point?

Always, I think, when discussing such matters as justice and fairness. What I think is fair, you think is unfair. How will that ever change?

[Terrapin Station]

Then, to avoid chaos, we need to come to some agreement as to what justice is supposed to accomplish. Otherwise, Tommy's father will come with a gun and shoot Billy's father. Then Billy's uncle will retaliate by killing Tommy and his family. And so on.

So, what is justice supposed to accomplish? Is there an answer to this that everyone can agree to?

Functionally, "what justice is supposed to accomplish" tends to be what I said: the distribution of rewards and/or punishments in a manner that folks feel is reasonable and equitable in a given situation.

The problem is that you're never going to come to a universal agreement about just what (distribution of) rewards and/or punishments are reasonable and equitable. There will always be disagreements, and those disagreements will always result in some level of discord. That's because we're talking about inherently subjective assessments. There's no way around that. One needs to recognize that the assessments are inherently subjective and then adjust one's expectations accordingly.

[gad-fly]

Are we still wallowing in subjectivity at this point?

Always, I think, when discussing such matters as justice and fairness. What I think is fair, you think is unfair. How will that ever change?

Justice is definitely subjective. It can be given, and it can be found, both subjectively. What justice believed to have been given may not be found to be the case.

Justice is not about balancing rights. Balancing rights is necessary action to reach decision. LAW is about balancing rights. Justice is not reward and punishment. Law and rules are.

There is no such thing as good or bad justice. If bad, then it is not justice? No. There is only justice and injustice. Justice, in this respect, is a state of mind, like peace and happiness.

[LuckyR]

Justice is not abstract, but subjective. You just succeed in ripping the emotions out of the justice system. Consequently noone feels justice is being done, but instead it is just a bureacratic process of no emotional significance.

A Billy comes to his father saying that Tommy stole his lunch. His father finds Tommy, punches him in the face, and breaks his nose. Is that justice?

It depends which use of the word "justice" you are referring to. There is the broad concept of reacting to a negative action (as opposed in inaction). In this definition, yes your story is an example of justice. Rogue justice (many would use the term vengeance), but under our broad definition a form of justice.

OTOH there is the narrow definition of justice, namely the workings of an impartial, fair and effective Justice System. Clearly your scenario is not an example of that.

In subjective matters like "justice", it is often easier to describe what it isn't than what it is. What is injustice? To me the most common form is inaction in the face of a deliberate wrong. Billy gets his lunch stolen by Tommy and the teacher does nothing and Billy's dad does nothing.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Justice is about the proper balancing of rights. This is best demonstrated in a context in which we find justice at work. All practical rights arise from agreements. We come to agree to respect and protect certain rights for each other.

Yes. And I think justice is not as much about laws and stuff as fairness, as perceived by us humans. We can accept many things, but injustice is unfair, and that annoys us more than might be obvious at first. We are very keen on justice and fairness, I think.

One of the things Kant suggested was that we should only pass laws that we ourselves are willing to be subject to. It's what I like to call "a rule for making rules". So I imagine "fairness" is treating everyone equally under the law. When you say that "injustice is unfair" does that equate to "it is unfair to steal from me because we have an agreement to respect and protect each other's right to our property"?

[Marvin_Edwards]

Are we still wallowing in subjectivity at this point?

Always, I think, when discussing such matters as justice and fairness. What I think is fair, you think is unfair. How will that ever change?

It is possible for two people of good will to disagree as to which law will turn out best for everyone. A legislative body will study an issue, bring in experts to testify, argue for different rules, and take a vote. That establishes a working rule. Over time we'll gain more experience and revisit that rule if needed to change it or delete it. The process repeats, each time, hopefully, getting nearer the goal.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Then, to avoid chaos, we need to come to some agreement as to what justice is supposed to accomplish. Otherwise, Tommy's father will come with a gun and shoot Billy's father. Then Billy's uncle will retaliate by killing Tommy and his family. And so on.

So, what is justice supposed to accomplish? Is there an answer to this that everyone can agree to?

Functionally, "what justice is supposed to accomplish" tends to be what I said: the distribution of rewards and/or punishments in a manner that folks feel is reasonable and equitable in a given situation.

The problem is that you're never going to come to a universal agreement about just what (distribution of) rewards and/or punishments are reasonable and equitable. There will always be disagreements, and those disagreements will always result in some level of discord. That's because we're talking about inherently subjective assessments. There's no way around that. One needs to recognize that the assessments are inherently subjective and then adjust one's expectations accordingly.

They need not be "inherently subjective". In lawmaking we can consider practical evidence, the opinions of experts, and even trial and error in moving things forward and expanding agreement.

[Marvin_Edwards]

A Billy comes to his father saying that Tommy stole his lunch. His father finds Tommy, punches him in the face, and breaks his nose. Is that justice?

It depends which use of the word "justice" you are referring to. There is the broad concept of reacting to a negative action (as opposed in inaction). In this definition, yes your story is an example of justice. Rogue justice (many would use the term vengeance), but under our broad definition a form of justice.

OTOH there is the narrow definition of justice, namely the workings of an impartial, fair and effective Justice System. Clearly your scenario is not an example of that.

In subjective matters like "justice", it is often easier to describe what it isn't than what it is. What is injustice? To me the most common form is inaction in the face of a deliberate wrong. Billy gets his lunch stolen by Tommy and the teacher does nothing and Billy's dad does nothing.

Rules make expectations explicit. If the teacher does nothing to resolve Billy's problem with Tommy stealing his lunch, then the teacher is subject to "arrest" and "correction" by the principal.

In the same fashion, when the system of justice fails to protect a black man jogging through a neighborhood, there is a call for justice that comes from the people themselves.