"A concept defined according to the particular philiosphical school of the inquirer, as evidenced by the Platonci dialogue, Cratylus. Most definitions can be catergorised into one of two groups: one holding that justice has a transcendental naure and is determined by God; the other maintaining that justice is a matter of convention determined by human judgment."
It then referred me to Aristotle who has, of course, long passed. Now I am not sure about you dear reader, but that definition made little sense to me. So off I went to a non-legal dictionary which told me:
"1. just behaviour or treatment - the quality of being just"
Okay what does "just" mean? Is there still hope for understanding? I delved further to find the meaning of "just" and this is what it said:
" morally right and fair - appropriate or deserved - (of an opinion or appraisal) well founded".
So I pondered. And I pondered some more. And here's the thing:
Putting all this together and thus accepting that justice is determined by human judgment as to what is morally right and fair, appropriated or deserved, a reasonably heavy penny dropped, many of us ind those we encounter along life's path have this deep and over-bearing belief in justice - that morality and fairness will always win out even if there are speed bumps along the way. The problem is the speed bumps are most frequently "human judgment" which is often flawed as to what is morally right and fair - appropriate or deserved - (of an opinion or appraisal) well founded.
Why is this human judgment flawed? Because humans are flawed? That goes without saying, no? We all make judgments based on our personal belief systems, morals, ethics etc.
But let's go back to the definition of justice in the ordinary dictionary where a second definition is proferred:
"the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this (quality of being just)"
So how, when, why then does it become acceptable, reasonable or desirable that justice, - the determination of what is morally right and fair, appropriate or deserved - be based on human judgment which at its fundamental base is the determiner's moral standards? How can that be true justice? Because isn't it true that the distinction between what is morally right and fair becomes blurred and/or overtaken by the determiner's moralistic standard which is so deeply rooted in their class and/or religious doctrine?
And so why then do we fight so hard for justice for ourselves and others when the process of obtaining it fraught with speed bumps? Why do we still believe? Does there come a time when acceptance of the influence of human flaws determining the quality of being just and hence what is justice becomes so profound that we throw our hands up in the air and say "I give up - I accept justice is a myth and I will now longer seek or demand it." Is non-acceptance foolish and/or burdensome? Are we wrong to keep fighting? Are we wrong to offer hope to those who desperately but reasonably need justice?
Has justice been unreasonably and unfairly denied to someone because of a perception of class betrayal? Has it been denied because the moralistic standards rooted in class and religious doctrine of the determiner have over-ridden what was morally right and fair? Without doubt.
Tonight as I write this the tears of pain fall down my cheeks because I am scared I have reached the point where, for my own survival, I need to stop holding out hope to those who rightfully deserve justice.
