Author Topic: What is justice?  (Read 641 times)

Frater Gaster

What is justice?
« on: December 24, 2017, 08:50:20 pm »
To you, what is justice?
"I know that I hung on a windy tree nine long nights, wounded with a spear, dedicated to Odin, myself to myself, on that tree of which no man knows from where its roots run."

- Odin

NEMO 93

Re: What is justice?
« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2017, 09:40:16 pm »
A lie, anything can be justified to people based on their beliefs and in the worst case, delusions.

Christianity justified the crusades, Crowley justified a lot in his concept of True Will. Beliefs can easily lead people astray. The shadow of the HGA- a true wil, is Chronzon- a mass of delusions.

It's easy to delude one's self and everyone does it in the name of being justified. If you want to here people spew a copious ammount of pseudo-philosophical bullshit, ask them if they were in the right to do [insert ethically grey act here]

There is no justice, you can justify something saying it was karmically right but you could argue any point against that when you get into abstract spiritual justifications and most philosophical ethics are easily debunked by existentialist authors.

The only ethics I really like is Sartre. You are free to do any action. You will be defined by these actions, by both yourself, and by society in other human beings. You must be okay with this. You must also avoid adapting false values or acting inauthentically to your self in term of ethics.
"“I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.” -Aldous Huxley

pi_rameses

Re: What is justice?
« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2017, 01:49:45 pm »
I don't think I have a proper answer for Justice in and of itself. Just as I don't have one for any of the other forms. I need to particularize it. Justice for whom? And according to whom? Which culture? Perhaps there are some overlaps.
Pro omnis dominos viae sinistra, sic itur ad astra
Nylfmedli14

Xepera maSet

Re: What is justice?
« Reply #3 on: December 25, 2017, 04:32:15 pm »
Here's my favorite Justice Studies philosopher or whatever he would be called, Michael Sandel:

Well the simplest way of understanding justice is giving people what they deserve. This idea goes back to Aristotle. The real difficulty begins with figuring out who deserves what and why.

Broadly speaking I think there are three answers to the question ‘What is justice?’ There’s the utilitarian answer which says justice means maximising happiness. Answer number two, given by Immanuel Kant, which says that justice is a matter of respecting human dignity, certain categorical duties and rights. And the third answer is the answer that Aristotle gave: justice means giving people what they deserve, where what they deserve depends on their virtue and depends on sorting out hard questions about the good life.


https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/interview-michael-sandel-on-justice-bbc4-justice-citizens-guide
AKA: Three Scarabs, 1137


The stars don't tell the future, Donkey.
They tell stories.
- Shrek

pi_rameses

Re: What is justice?
« Reply #4 on: December 25, 2017, 06:24:46 pm »
Here's my favorite Justice Studies philosopher or whatever he would be called, Michael Sandel:

Well the simplest way of understanding justice is giving people what they deserve. This idea goes back to Aristotle. The real difficulty begins with figuring out who deserves what and why.

Broadly speaking I think there are three answers to the question ‘What is justice?’ There’s the utilitarian answer which says justice means maximising happiness. Answer number two, given by Immanuel Kant, which says that justice is a matter of respecting human dignity, certain categorical duties and rights. And the third answer is the answer that Aristotle gave: justice means giving people what they deserve, where what they deserve depends on their virtue and depends on sorting out hard questions about the good life.


https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/interview-michael-sandel-on-justice-bbc4-justice-citizens-guide

I think I would prefer Kant's definition the least whereas I would find it more amenable to either subscribe to Mill's or Aristotle's definition.
Pro omnis dominos viae sinistra, sic itur ad astra
Nylfmedli14

NEMO 93

Re: What is justice?
« Reply #5 on: December 25, 2017, 09:40:54 pm »
No offense to people who ascribe but I fucking hate Kant cause he's too much of an objective approach. You have to deem wether something is good or bad for humanity and adhere to it all the time. The biggest issue is this: Lying. Lying is bad because it diminishes the collective ammount of human trust. However, if someone who wished you no harm but wanted to kill your friend asked you where it was, then lying to him would still be bad in Kantian ethics.

Utilitarianism is ethical hedonism. The most pleasure and least pain for society. I like this idea but do we really owe society more than we owe ourselves? It fails to account for individualism. We had to analyze the incident where people were stranded on a ship and had to decide who to asnwer with utalitarian ethics in Intro to Philosophy and it was very useful if you would wish to be mindful of others. What it shows though is, not everyone will agree on what is the most pleasurable and least painful to both individuals and society. It will contradict, and people have different preferences ergo different justifications.

Aristotle is interesting and it's something to keep in mind. Sometimes when you're being nice to someone, you're actually enabling them. But my problem is this: you're placing your OWN judgement values onto ths person to decide what's right for them. It's hard to know who someone really is, even yourself, so how can you judge another in how they live for themselves? You can judge how they influence you and make bases off of that but you can't tell them how to live their life.

So as an individualist and LHP adherer, as well as absurdist/existentialist, I highly promote Sartre's ethics:


"One convinces oneself, in some sense, to be bound to act by external circumstance, in order to escape the anguish of freedom. Sartre says that man is condemned to be free: whether he adopts an "objective" moral system to do this choosing for him, or follows only his pragmatic concerns, he cannot help but be aware that they are not – fundamentally – part of him. Moreover, as possible intentional objects of one's consciousness, one is fundamentally not part of oneself, but rather exactly what one, as consciousness, defines oneself in opposition to; along with everything else one could be conscious of.

Fundamentally, Sartre believes mankind cannot escape responsibility by adopting an external moral system, as the adoption of such is in itself a choice that we endorse, implicitly or explicitly, for which we must take full responsibility. Sartre argues that one cannot escape this responsibility, as each attempt to part one's self from the freedom of choice is in itself a demonstration of choice, and choice is dependent on a person's wills and desires.

As a human, one cannot claim his actions are determined by external forces; this is the core statement of existentialism. One is "condemned" to this eternal freedom; human beings exist before the definition of human identity exists. One cannot define oneself as a thing in the world, as one has the freedom to be otherwise. One is not "a philosopher", as at some point one must/will cease the activities that define the self as "a philosopher". Any role that one might adopt does not define one as there is an eventual end to one's adoption of the role; i.e. other roles will be assigned to us, "a chef", "a mother". The self is not constant, it cannot be a thing in the world. Though one cannot assign a positive value to definitions that may apply to oneself, one remains able to say what one is not.

This inner anguish over moral uncertainty is a central underlying theme in existentialism, as the anguish demonstrates a personal feeling of responsibility over the choices one makes throughout life. Without an emphasis on personal choice, one may make use of an external moral system as a tool to moralize otherwise immoral acts, leading to negation of the self. According to existentialism, dedicated professionals of their respective moral codes – priests interpreting sacred scriptures, lawyers interpreting the Constitution, doctors interpreting the Hippocratic oath – should, instead of divesting the self of responsibility in the discharge of one's duties, be aware of one's own significance in the process. This recognition involves the questioning of the morality of all choices, taking responsibility for the consequences of one's own choice and therefore; a constant reappraisal of one's own and others' ever-changing humanity. One must not exercise bad faith by denying the self's freedom of choice and accountability. Taking on the burden of personal accountability in all situations is an intimidating proposition – by pointing out the freedom of the individual, Sartre seeks to demonstrate that the social roles and moral systems we adopt protect us from being morally accountable for our actions."


"“I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.” -Aldous Huxley

pi_rameses

Re: What is justice?
« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2017, 02:14:46 am »
Excellent. I love that you tore Kant to pieces here on this post. And I mainly agree on these points. Deontological ethics just don't stand the test of time for me. Far too rigid.

Yes utilitarianism as well as Epicureanism is hedonistic but at least they are a bit temperate and sustainable in that they were careful in defining pleasure unlike the Cyrenaics, who are non-existing now for taking hedonism too far. They didn't last very long quite frankly whereas Epicureanism endured to other principles like present-day communism.

I'm more inclined to the existential camp especially Kierkegaard and Heidegger. I agree with what Sartre says on acts of bad faith.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2017, 02:27:19 am by pi_ramesses »
Pro omnis dominos viae sinistra, sic itur ad astra
Nylfmedli14

crossfire

Re: What is justice?
« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2017, 02:40:49 am »
I see "justice" as related to "satisfaction."
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you."
~Carl Jung

pi_rameses

Re: What is justice?
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2017, 02:51:54 am »
I don't like the state of justice in society either. Society necessitates that unjust people run the show with or oftentimes instead of just people. So at times, I think of satisfaction, desire or freedom. This leads me to think of Lao Tzu and this video on one story on him:



Only caveat. I kinda like greed. Perhaps I'm not just in that respect.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2017, 03:24:44 am by pi_ramesses »
Pro omnis dominos viae sinistra, sic itur ad astra
Nylfmedli14

Khronos

Re: What is justice?
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2017, 10:47:24 pm »
Justice is the false construct built by man to satisfy the primal desire for retaliaton.  Wrapped in the shiny veneer of righteous law and vaunted ethics, the need for the exacting of punishment is reconciled.  For the weak and fearful too cowadly to accept the dissonant tones inherent in man...revenge, retribution, and vengeance are dressed in the bright soothing raiments of justice.  It is a self-indulged mask and the lie fed to stomach the mirror.


Everyone's a monster to someone.

Rougue

Re: What is justice?
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2017, 12:46:04 am »
Justice is knowing that we all have our lessons to learn.
Although, I do wish to bring upon vengeance to some who have done me wrong. I have had to embody my belief of all is perception and nothing is truly wrong/right.
Although slightly cliche my successes to come out of the shitstorm in my godhood, is really the highest form of justice.
What comes to mind is Ma'at and the weighing of the feather against your heart, is your hear full of 'wrong-doings' by people /or are you upset by the 'good' you've done but haven't seen it returned? oops, scales are tipped.
True justice is a heart empty of expectation of other, love for Self.

Breifily, to the 'justice system' of the 'law'  - this is a joke, I will bring a law-less nation. The solution to fix this problem, is not more laws, but less.
The Rose of the Palace of Fire

NEMO 93

Re: What is justice?
« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2017, 02:02:26 am »
@Rougue I invoked Anubis once and he decided to judge me making the ceremony a recreation of the weighing of my heart against the feather of Ma'at.

It was quite an intense experience. If you really want to know what is in your heart, I highly recommend recreating this rite in some form- it will expose you to the weight of your actions.

I'd warn against putting moral value onto your actions in this kind of ritual, which was a mistake I made, but it will help you to realize the effects your action have- which is always a very good thing to keep in mind.
"“I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.” -Aldous Huxley

Kapalika

Re: What is justice?
« Reply #12 on: December 29, 2017, 03:00:01 pm »
To me? Fairness. Without bias and considering all evidence. Injustice is treading the rights of others whether it be their right to belief, practice, free movement or ability to live their lives in peace. Injustice isn't necessarily canceled out by justice though, and it's a little contextual. There's a general social contract we are all held to uphold not just for others' benefit but for ourselves as well. The, "live and let live" type of idea. I think it meshes well with individualism and freedom.

I see "justice" as related to "satisfaction."

This is, scary as it is, not too far off when it comes to criminal law.
https://kapalika.com

My religion is Satanism & Trika via Vāmācāra

"God and the individual are one. To realize this is the essence of Shaivism." - Swami Lakshmanjoo

NEMO 93

Re: What is justice?
« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2017, 05:20:12 pm »
@pi_ramesses  I in no way meant to say I had a problem with Utiliatarianism's used of hedonism. On one level, it makes sense, at least for most people who don't use esoteric thought. And even if you use esoteric thought you could define whatever we seek as pleasure worth all the pain, there's solid arguments for it, I think, that come from hedonism.

However, it's far too subjective and hard to measure. When you take into account society, everyone judges differently and measures it differently and then you get in to situations such as being stranded on the boat and having to eat one person or die(like we analyzed in philosophy class) where there's really no right answer to the question. While this sounds like an extreme, if a set of ethics cant apply to every situation than it's obviously not the truth. And you can take it in lesser extremes, is it okay to ever throw someone under the boss for your greater good? or the greater good of society? This could paint some negative gut-reaction actions as ethical despite most of us thinking we arent. However, that could just be a part of us that distracts from the truth.

Ultimately, I think these kind of what-ifs leads to most sets of ethics of being ways to justify behavior by relying on an external set which is why I keep going back to Sartre's argument when I begin to justify myself.
"“I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.” -Aldous Huxley

Frater Gaster

Re: What is justice?
« Reply #14 on: December 29, 2017, 07:32:04 pm »
Once again, thank you so much for the responses, and apologies for not enough contribution on my part. I mentioned in my "what is honor" topic what I thought justice was.



"I know that I hung on a windy tree nine long nights, wounded with a spear, dedicated to Odin, myself to myself, on that tree of which no man knows from where its roots run."

- Odin