A Dialogue on Justice

GBlagg: I hoped today we could discuss the issue of justice.
S&S: Ah, yes justice. The ‘dividing line’.
GBlagg: The ‘dividing line’?
S&S: You will understand soon enough.
Where would you like to begin?
GBlagg: Well, I have been thinking lately about how it is that I form my opinions on issues. What process I use to come to these opinions. What exactly is it that my rational mind uses to measure and weigh the information in order to decide where my beliefs should fall.
S&S: And?
GBlagg: And, I have found that I almost universally rely on the idea of justice.
S&S: Ah. so here already we have come to the idea of the ‘dividing line’. The ‘dividing line’ of 'justice'.
GBlagg: Explain.
S&S: Man uses many different ‘filters’ in the decision process.
But here you wish to deal with the ‘filter’ of ‘justice’. You say you look to ‘justice’ to make decisions. Admittedly, I am much the same.
But this is not the case for many among us. The ‘filter’ of ‘justice’ is the ‘dividing line’ between you and those who use other ‘filters’ through which to come to an understanding of their own opinions.
GBlagg: Such as?
S&S: Well, let me ask you first...just what is it you would define as ‘justice’?
GBlagg: That one gets as one deserves, whether through actions good or evil. Good actions should result in positive outcomes and evil actions, negative outcomes. And adversely, good actions should not result in negative outcomes, nor should evil actions result in positive ones. And of course, reality being what it is, ‘justice’ is the working towards forcing reality to fit this balance.
S&S: Give an example, please.
GBlagg: OK. We have two young men.
One works hard in school. He avoids trouble through his teen years, goes to college, gets a decent job, finds a nice girl to marry, and lives within the law.
The other drops out of high school, he gets into drugs, runs afoul of the law, and lands in prison.
The first man lives a happy life, content and well liked.
The second spends his life in and out of the penal system.
S&S: I see. So the outcomes of their lives seem to you to be just. But what of the idea that society should see these men as equal?
GBlagg: That is insanity. They are not equal. One has spent his life doing what is right, the other the opposite. To call them equal is unjust. So as shown here, justice demands inequality.
S&S: I tend to agree, yet ‘equality’ is another ‘filter’. One that is used by many in our society.
Here we have the ‘dividing line’ of ‘justice’ and ‘equality’.
GBlagg: Go on.
S&S: Those who see through the ‘filter’ of ‘equality’, see no differences in actions. No difference at all between a good or evil action. As long as the outcome ends in what they see as ‘equality’, the means to that end mean very little to them. The originating actions, motives, and rationales simply do not matter. ‘Equality’ matters above all.
This person would see in the example you gave, a harsh unfairness. Both men, they would say, should suffer equal outcomes in their lives...‘equality’, they say, demands it. Equal happiness, equal social status, equal work and job opportunities.
GBlagg: I have dealt with many who think and act exactly as you describe. I can think of many examples of this type of thinking. Socialism and Communism come to mind. And affirmative action and feminist job quotas. Redistributive taxation and the entire entitlement culture.
S&S: You mentioned Socialism. Let us look at that for a moment.
GBlagg: It is the nearly perfect example. It is simply ‘injustice’ disguised as ‘equality’. At its core it is nothing more than the unproductive acting as parasites on the productive.
S&S: But it would be argued that this is in the name of ‘compassion’.
GBlagg: ‘It would be argued’, yes. But this is a lame argument. If one truly believes in ‘equality’, no man can have more than any other, yes? If this is so, then how is it ‘compassionate’ to those who actually work hard to take what they have truly earned and give it to those who haven’t? Where is the ‘equality’ in ‘compassion’ here?
For Socialism to work, it must work in the real world. And humans, being what they are, the lazy will ultimately take advantage of this so called ‘equality’. It is much the same as what we see in this countries entitlement culture. People believing that they are entitled simply through the accident of birth to that which another man has earned. There is no ‘justice’ here. And definitely no ‘equality’ of ‘compassion’.
S&S: OK, good. But are there any other points of divergence between the ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ crowds?
GBlagg: Well, how about the constant complaint that there are more of one race in prison than another?
S&S: OK, proceed.
GBlagg: We have both heard the argument that a certain minority is over represented in the justice system. The argument goes that inequality in race is proven through the fact that there is not the same proportion of race differential in prison as there is in free society. And added to that, there is usually a demand that those numbers be artificially made equal.
It seems to me, though, that ‘justice’ demands that it should not matter what the color of a man’s skin. If he is a criminal, he should be punished. If this means that one race is over represented in our penal system, then so be it. Let ‘justice’ decide, not ‘equality’.
S&S: Are there any other examples you can think of?
GBlagg: Well to be precise, it really has to do with ‘equality’ and ‘injustice’.
It goes to the whole Larry Summers debacle. Many feminists believe that there should be the exact same number of women as men in every job classification. As many women as men truck drives, miners, crab fishermen, roofers, scientists, etc. Many are so adamant, they seek laws to force this to be the case. They demand ‘equality’ in jobs women would sooner choose not to work. ‘Equality’ in jobs women would in all honesty not be as good at. This is unjust and insane.
And affirmative action is another example. It is the forcing of ‘equality’ with little or no regard to ‘justice’. Something as insignificant as the amount of melanin in one’s skin awards one an advantage in college admissions?
S&S: It seems the point has been made. But there are other ‘filters’ that work against ‘justice’.
Gblagg: Such as?
S&S: Well, how about the ‘filter’ of ‘peace at all costs’?
GBlagg: OK, I can see that. I have met those who believe that war is never right. That there are no such things as a just wars.
S&S: Yes, of course. So how does this oppose ‘justice’?
GBlagg: Where is the ‘justice’ in refusing to fight even as tyranny sweeps one’s country? Or remaining passive as men are beheaded, children slaughtered, or women raped?
Would it have been ‘just’ to stand by and let the Germans continue on through Europe in World War II? To finish the genocide of the Jews?
How can one, in all honesty, say it is always wrong to fight tyranny?
If ‘War is Never the Answer’, I need to see the question.
S&S: Yes, they are a mindless crowd. But let us move forward.
Let us look at the ‘filter’ of ‘moral relativism’. Does this ‘filter’ oppose ‘justice’?
GBlagg: I would say yes.
S&S: Explain.
GBlagg: In order for there to be justice, judgements must first be made. Justice demands judgements. Judgements of good and evil, right and wrong. Justice can not exist without judgement.
‘Moral relativism’ denies good and evil. It abhors judgements. This links back to the ‘equality’ argument. It argues that there is no right or wrong. So all men, all actions, all beliefs, all outcomes are ‘equal. And who are we to judge?.
S&S: I see. And how is this ‘unjust’.
GBlagg: We need simply take a look at the Stanley ‘Tookie’ Williams case. He murdered an entire family in cold blood. He never took responsibility for these killings. He threatened the jurors at his trial.
He was a founding member of the Crips street gang.
Ah, but he wrote children’s books.
So on one side we have three people. Left lying bleeding, dying, gasping for life. And on the other, we have a book with some pretty pictures that may or may not influence some young thug to stay out of a gang.
Hmm, this is a tough one.
But this is ‘moral relativism’.
S&S: Can you think of any other examples?
GBlagg: Sure. Let us look at the way many feminists look at the fetus. They see it as being no different than a virus or a bacteria. Simply a parasite on the mother. So morally, to get rid of it is not unlike simply taking penicillin to cure a bug.
The idea of whether it is just or not to steal the future from a human being in the making either never enters the picture or is purposefully ignored.
S&S: So do we now understand the idea of the ‘dividing line’?
GBlagg: In those terms, now, yes. But, subconsciously and in all reality, I think I’d grasped the difference between what you call the ‘filter’ of ‘justice’ and those that oppose it all along.
S&S: As you say.