GOLDENICE Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Justice seems to change as societies develop. More tribal in nature rather than individual unless an autocratic leader. Would like other opinions please. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NameName Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I'm not entirely sure, but I'd like to just put out some definitions to develop this question: Justice: Just behavior or treatment. Just: Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. Moral: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Have you heard these podcasts? FDR232 Justice http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_232_Justice.mp3 FDR1553 Restitution http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1553_restitution.mp3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Stephen Mangan Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Along with what @itsmassive said, just = fair, an equal level of response and reaction, or ^retribution. Most historical definitions of justice have not actually been just at all, I think because they've been derived from the idea of breaking with perfection, or the dictates of a perfect and "righteous" god or state. And that if you break with perfection from what is "righteous/good," then it would be justice that any and all evil be done to you, which isn't actually just or equal at all. Rational justice would be more like a mathematical equation, or balancing a scale. To answer the question in the subject line, I think that objective/rational equal reaction justice is universal, and justice based on abstracts that do not exist based on empirical logic and evidence is cultural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts