The Aquisition of Justice

Torakx

What are the first thoughts, pictures, words and emotions you get, when reading the word "Justice" ?
Keep a mental note of that, as you read. It would be interesting to know if those things change after reading this.

With political sociology in mind, I want to make the distinction between "justice" as it really means and "manufactured justice" or "Pseudo Justice".
The former I base on a dictionary search.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice

Manufactured justice, is my view of the appointed outlets provision for people, to express their energy and will, throughout society, in opposition to certain injustices.
Charities, unions, protests, would be some examples of outlets for the proletariat class (working part time "immigrant" lifestyle to be crude), a growing groupin society, who have or seek work, but can't gain any secure employment.
It seems also that justice requires action and means, or a target, to direct it.

When thinking about the solution to the overall injustice, inherent in systems of governance and economics, it appears to me, that by supporting these constructs or outlets, we support the feeling of aquiring an the idea of "Justice" by holding up pseudo justice as a moral obligation, as a personal contribution, to better society or just for the "self".
The energy of the masses have many outlets, that seem to vary depending on class and station in society.
Drop down below a prolateriat and you might find youself seeking pseudo justice, in substance abuse.
Likewise, drop down to the proletariat level and you might find you are finding pseudo justice in alcohol and tobacco. The legal killers, that relfect a class that suffers externally and internally.
Compensating internally through masichism and externally through altruism.
The masochistic tendencies of the hardline drug addict, reflect a loss of perceived power and ability of expression.
A separation from society occurs(inherently again through current systems of social politics) and a withdraw from society is a natural logical reaction. It is more difficult for this class, as they are often imprisoned in society itself.
The efforts and energy that go towards fighting drug addiction, are more good examples of pseudo justice in action.

In culture, especially concerning media, it is more often than not violence and revenge(or retribution), that are displayed. Often behind heroic acts of love and self sacrifice.
The hero archetype in many ways, has allowed for the aquisition of justice.
The same self sacrifice you might see in a proletariat, having a smoke break outside the cafe they work in.
The same self sacrifice you might see in a drug addict, taking another hit.

Self-Sacrifice.

That is why altruistic behaviour is selfish. Neither good or bad. It is not sacrifice of the "Self", but a nurturing of the egoic view that doing these presupposed things, means that "Self" is morally just and right, by way of their "proactive" energy expenditure.

There lies the trap for society in general.
Two obvious options are laid at our feet, or more accurately, into our minds.
The option to be proactive with our empathy and use these outlets we have been educated to observe, or be proactive and try to ignore empathy, using the other outlets for this masichistic search for justice. Mainly materialism and hedonism.

This overall or maybe root mechanic of aquiring a lens, to see justice in a certain light, appear to be linked back to our religious morals and laws.

Viewing things at a more primal level, with social matters in mind.
We see the altruistics and the psychopathics are working in harmony.
Each supporting the other through their many actions and outlets formed. Reinforced by culture and the culture behind legislation.
Which either press down on the less powerful and socially ostracised, or heave up against the more powerful socially respected(or popular authority figures).
The most popular authority figure for society, is not god, or any person, but government itself and all it stands for.

This hierarchical approach to building a tall platform(tall to indicate power), with priorities biased in favour of the beneficiaries(politicians, civil servants, unions, army etc), inherently seeks to go higher. That is progress for hierarchichal natures. The higher and more complex they become, the more hierarchies dominate.

I am posing the idea here, that the "Aquisition of Justice", is the acting out of a people, who have benfited already superficially. And who have mistakenly learned to find "Justice"(of the internal self as well), through "Pseudo justice" frameworks/cultural ideologies.

Thoughts?

silverfeather

There is the broader discussion of what is just and the philosophical discussion of what is just. Then there is jurisprudence. Distributive justice and retributive justice.

Justice is both the discussion of what is just and the attainment of that. It can also be a character trait in some people. A virtue.

zeffabelli

Revenge but civilised.

Joe1919

Torakx wrote: »

...With political sociology in mind, I want to make the distinction between "justice" as it really means and "manufactured justice" or "Pseudo Justice"...

I am not sure what you mean by ''justice' as it really means'

Some people (e.g. Plato's republic) have tried to argue for some type of 'ideal' justice or natural justice that transcends man (and is not manufactured). (Some Religions claim that justice comes from God and is revealed to wise men, prophets etc. )

There is a tendency by many to see justice as manufactured. i.e. Justice consists of Laws, customs, institutions, agreements, rights and duties that are put together by man. However, Justice does have a foundation in terms of its attempt to be useful, rational, in line with how people feel, tradition etc. but it can favor one individual or group over another. It is also put together for the survival of the state and its structures and perhaps even its 'Prince' (Machiavelli)

Hobbs, who lived during the English civil war famously argued that even imperfect justice was better than no justice (anarchy).
Justice comes about because people are not solitary and need the cooperation of others to trade and to survive etc.

Some have argued that there is only one natural law of justice and that is 'might is right'. Although this appears cynical, all justice and laws need some type of force (enforcement) if they are to be effective.

Torakx

I guess if I approached this from another perspective, I might start pulling the idea of justice apart, to see what it's made of.
It can mean many things. I am looking at it from the perspective of sociology, politics and personal expression, with a philosophical lens, I hope.

"Revenge but civilised"
That's exactly how I see it.
I have read recently, maybe in my Nietzsche reader, that back in Roman times, or maybe before that, they allowed someone the option to take flesh for debt payment. Even from a higher ranking person.
It was even a more glorious reward, to lower someone above you and disgrace them or hurt them.
It wasn't about fair payment, it was about revenge and the pleasure in it.


On what I see justice meaning?
All those things everyone mentioned can be seen as forms of justice.
I think justice is rarely or never able to be applied, without an injustice.
Justice as an apposing force to injustice, is a reaction. And possibly vice versa.
I mentioned in that first post "This overall or maybe root mechanic of aquiring a lens, to see justice in a certain light, appear to be linked back to our religious morals and laws."
When one country invades a weaker country, I would imagine they feel justified in their actions.
It might be God, it might be loyalty, philosophy. It all depends on perception I suppose. The "I".
I say feel, because I think it is a primal instinct(reaching for security, against a threat of insecurity).
And when we see we live in a society that has no respect for human life(homeless people, drug addicts, employees, workers, education etc)
, we require some form of justice for that. Because for a majority, individually, we do respect other people. Because we respect ourselves, WE are other people too.
This is the issue with the psychopath in business. When you reduce people to numbers and symbols, they are no longer part of the "I".

When it comes to aquiring justice, in sociopolitical terms, I think people are not being served real justice, for what ails them.
I think that government as we know it, functions on this corruption of the aquisition of true justice, while appearing to provide justice at the same time.
Because government does not represent the individual. It could, but then things would possibly be more equal than not.

Before I go dipping my toes into the political side of things in relation to government and my idealism..
One of the things I wanted to figure out, is how to break this down to a more basic framework, so I can actually see it clearly and work with it.
I mentioned security a few times. It might be the mechanism at the root of a sense of justice.
If so, it sort of explains my views on masichism.


Another thought along the lines of behaviour.
If anyone remembers seeing caged animals, you might notice that they are neurotic.
And according to how caged they are.
Take a dog that was running free in the fields and keep it in the house for a year. You will have a different dog, a more nervous dog(psychic energy held back).. Afraid of the outside when learned helplessness sets in.
It begins to find security in its prison and defends it's last ground to stand on. You can exercise the dog in the house and it can be healthy and doesn't act out when it's resting. But it will still be afraid of outside and yearn for outside. I think.
I see society going through a similar thing.
A small example of learned helplessness in our society: Working minimum wage, in a job that could end any day, then out smoking and drinking to "relieve stress".
If the "outside" and the dog scenario was applied to society, I would say it is outside equals freedom of the individual.
Is that the ultimate motivating factor? Our autonomy?
Are we aquiring a sense of justice temporarily, through many outlets of energy provided, only to return again for the same reason?
Should this be something that philosophers should be partly responsible for? I imagine this has been covered.
But where did it lead them? Especialy with regards to social and political change.

Since I live in backwards land, I should do things unintuitively sometimes
So I will say that I am looking for a way to harness this energy, through a social movement or some kind of motivator/medium, to aquire individuality. Preferably worldwide.
I know marketing etc etc.
But the foundational mechanics, of this energy, are not fully understood or proven for me.
So far it seems that security is very close to a motivating factor in all of this.
Is there something behind that?
A will to power?
A will to life?

Joe1919

Torakx wrote: »

"Revenge but civilised"
That's exactly how I see it........debt payment. ......
It wasn't about fair payment, it was about revenge and the pleasure in it.

If anyone remembers seeing caged animals, you might notice that they are neurotic. And according to how caged they are.

You have raised two very good points above and many would consider them to be true. Ancient Greece always saw Justice as the payment of what was owed and the Hebrew saw it as 'an eye to an eye' etc. Hence we have the idea of retribution. We must pay for what we do wrong, we owe a debt to society etc.
There is a very good essay (imo) by PF Strawson that indirectly throws some good light on this. Now, if we look at the whole idea of Justice and responsibility, we run into metaphysical type problems such as whether people are free or determined etc. Now, Strawson argues that these dont really matter as justice is more about how we as humans react. (reactive attitudes) In other words, responsibility is not something that has an existence in itself. Responsibility is constructed/manufactured and also is a feeling. We teach our children to be responsible. They feel responsible (guilt, shame) etc. As humans, we reflect on our (and others) actions. We even punish ourselves.

Hence, the human is to some extent a neurotic, self critical, guilt ridden creature, a sort of wolf in sheeps clothing. He is torn between his instinctive desires and his need to get on with others, his own good and the common good.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwstrawson1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents

RichieO

"What are the first thoughts, pictures, words and emotions you get, when reading the word "Justice" ?"

My first thought was, 'where the hell did I put that' then I remembered, I threw it in the melting pot, along with beauty, truth, reality and a quite a lot of other stuff that I once considered to be definable to everyone by anyone, most things turn out to be 'in the eye of the beholder' or just an interpretation of someone's opinion, whether it is correct or not, is a matter of your own opinion, based on your own beliefs and philosophy...

Torakx

RichieO wrote: »

"What are the first thoughts, pictures, words and emotions you get, when reading the word "Justice" ?"

My first thought was, 'where the hell did I put that' then I remembered, I threw it in the melting pot, along with beauty, truth, reality and a quite a lot of other stuff that I once considered to be definable to everyone by anyone, most things turn out to be 'in the eye of the beholder' or just an interpretation of someone's opinion, whether it is correct or not, is a matter of your own opinion, based on your own beliefs and philosophy...

My point is highlighted in bold.
I think that our environment effects our interpretation to a large degree. Who ever controls the environment, controls popular opinion.
I genuinely want to know what pictures and thoughts come to everyone when they think justice.
I see court rooms first and foremost, along with a mix of other things that I presume resonate with my own personal feelings about injustice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4uQfRozvd0

An astounding lecture which explores many misconceptions about the nature of human relationships. William Hatcher uses logic and his understanding of the insights contained in the writings of the Baha'i Faith to uniquely examine the true underlying motivation behind many of the philosophical movements of the early 20th Century, including Communism, Nazism, and Capitalism. Hatcher has a profound mind, and bridges many of the seeming gaps between religion, philosophy and science.

I found this video last night. I think this guy's conclusions is where I was heading.
He mentions one of the key factors being authenticity.