Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

About Justice

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 1:22:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've always been troubled by this concept.

Suppose a person murders somebody. What exactly will justice be for the person who got murdered?

Whatever we do with the murderer, it will only be a punishment for the murderer. If the punishment is given by a related person, it's called revenge. If it's given by society, it's called justice?

But what's true justice for the murdered? That life is not coming back. How can there ever be true justice in the world? Is that an empty concept?

(I thought this is more of a philosophy topic, but incredibly, there's no philosophy forum in here!)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 1:28:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 1:22:17 PM, Indophile wrote:
I've always been troubled by this concept.

Suppose a person murders somebody. What exactly will justice be for the person who got murdered?

Whatever we do with the murderer, it will only be a punishment for the murderer. If the punishment is given by a related person, it's called revenge. If it's given by society, it's called justice?

But what's true justice for the murdered? That life is not coming back. How can there ever be true justice in the world? Is that an empty concept?

(I thought this is more of a philosophy topic, but incredibly, there's no philosophy forum in here!)

I like this definition of Justice, "judgment involved in the determination of the assignment of rewards and punishments."

So that justice is not "for" anyone other then the one that commited to act (i.e. the murderer, not the murdered).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 1:30:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
We don't need to restore things to the way they used to be for there to be justice. Even property crimes can't necessarily be all fixed up, because of the psychic value of certain items, or the psychic damage of being robbed. Rape victims can never be un-raped.

What a justice system ought to do is try to compensate victims as much as possible, even if true restoration of what was lost can never happen. If I murder you, a court can't bring you back. The most just, if not completely just, solution, is to force me to labor for the rest of my life, with the proceeds of that labor going to your estate.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 1:34:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 1:28:38 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/2/2010 1:22:17 PM, Indophile wrote:
I've always been troubled by this concept.

Suppose a person murders somebody. What exactly will justice be for the person who got murdered?

Whatever we do with the murderer, it will only be a punishment for the murderer. If the punishment is given by a related person, it's called revenge. If it's given by society, it's called justice?

But what's true justice for the murdered? That life is not coming back. How can there ever be true justice in the world? Is that an empty concept?

(I thought this is more of a philosophy topic, but incredibly, there's no philosophy forum in here!)

I like this definition of Justice, "judgment involved in the determination of the assignment of rewards and punishments."

So that justice is not "for" anyone other then the one that commited to act (i.e. the murderer, not the murdered).

To me that looks more like a definition of "fair compensation" than justice. I've never heard of an individual or a committee sitting together and pronouncing judgement to reward a certain person for his good deeds and then call it justice! Maybe they call it appreciation or whatever.

Justice comes into the picture with regards to bad deeds.

But still, what of the murdered person? Just bad luck? No dice for that person? It's in this context that I normally hear of justice being served.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 1:35:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 1:30:29 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
We don't need to restore things to the way they used to be for there to be justice. Even property crimes can't necessarily be all fixed up, because of the psychic value of certain items, or the psychic damage of being robbed. Rape victims can never be un-raped.

What a justice system ought to do is try to compensate victims as much as possible, even if true restoration of what was lost can never happen. If I murder you, a court can't bring you back. The most just, if not completely just, solution, is to force me to labor for the rest of my life, with the proceeds of that labor going to your estate.

So justice is just compensation dressed up to sound important?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 2:51:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 1:34:57 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/2/2010 1:28:38 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/2/2010 1:22:17 PM, Indophile wrote:
I've always been troubled by this concept.

Suppose a person murders somebody. What exactly will justice be for the person who got murdered?

Whatever we do with the murderer, it will only be a punishment for the murderer. If the punishment is given by a related person, it's called revenge. If it's given by society, it's called justice?

But what's true justice for the murdered? That life is not coming back. How can there ever be true justice in the world? Is that an empty concept?

(I thought this is more of a philosophy topic, but incredibly, there's no philosophy forum in here!)

I like this definition of Justice, "judgment involved in the determination of the assignment of rewards and punishments."

So that justice is not "for" anyone other then the one that commited to act (i.e. the murderer, not the murdered).

To me that looks more like a definition of "fair compensation" than justice. I've never heard of an individual or a committee sitting together and pronouncing judgement to reward a certain person for his good deeds and then call it justice! Maybe they call it appreciation or whatever.

Justice comes into the picture with regards to bad deeds.

But still, what of the murdered person? Just bad luck? No dice for that person? It's in this context that I normally hear of justice being served.

Well, the root of the word is "just" meaning to be fair, which applies to both positive and negative things.

It is much like the word "consequence," which is often viewed as a negative, but actually mean any reaction of an action, positive or negative.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"