I don’t know about you, but that’s justice to me, skewed and misdirected justice but justice nonetheless. And so it was when the crazed mob abducted the poor fellow from his jail cell and hanged him like a dog from the nearest tree, a perverse sense of justice, you say, but justice still.
Not much has changed in the state of Georgia since the twenties I'm afraid; need I recall the recent execution of Troy Davis? And Jack Slaton had lived the rest of his natural life in relative obscurity. But there's an object lesson in here for all of us, a lesson which bears repeating until it sinks in: all our differences boil down more or less to our different conceptions of justice. Which again brings into sharp relief the everlasting importance of the Socratic project.
What is justice?
If there’s one question that’s coextensive with humanity’s lifespan, a question which shall forever be asked and forever remain relevant, I can think of none other.
Article comments
1 - jamminsue
Justice is one slippery concept. And, I agree, the most important for humanity.
2 - roger nowosielski
One further qualification, to anticipate a possible objection -- the linguist's account of language acquisition (insofar as that account takes for granted a notion that language is innate).
I believe Chomsky was a pioneer of the idea, as per Cartesian Linguistics, but I was fortunate enough to have listened this morning to a recast interview with Jean Berko Gleason on one of the NPR stations, and the following podcast is (I believe) as good a popularization of Chomsky's idea as any. By all means, treat yourself and listen. It's fascinating stuff. Still looking for the darn transcript, for those who prefer the written word.
But to connect to my point, the linguist's account as to the origins of language stands in contrast to that of a deist (see last paragraph, page one); it's impossible, however, to develop the whole tree in an article like this (nor would there be a point).
On unrelated point, am not happy with the damn title. Haven't detached myself enough from the subject to come up with a happier one.
3 - roger nowosielski
@1
The only one we got, though, jamminsue. It's either this or nothing. There's no firmer basis upon which to construct true human alliances that will last.
4 - Anarcissie
Justice might be like beauty: almost everyone agrees that it exists, at least conceptually, but people do not agree as to what constitutes it or what belongs to it. Empirical investigations (the ones I know about) only reinforce this impression. So if justice, like beauty, is necessary to human life, then this uncertainty and irresolution is one of the problems we have to deal with.
5 - roger nowosielski
It's a moral ideal, just like virtue, fairness, honesty, trustworthiness is. That's how moral concepts function, for crying out laud. (Should say, one of the way they function.)
It's all in the language. Moral language has always been a language of self-discovery and ultimately, the proven line of defense against the injustices all around us and way of rectifying or removing those injustices.
Nor is there any doubt on the part of everyday speakers of natural/ordinary language what justice "means" in the elementary sense: we all know how to use to term simply because we're the speakers. Even fringe uses -- e.g., "I did justice to that steak" -- displays everyone's language competency, perhaps even more so.
Empirical studies aren't of much help when the processes of self-reflection and self-examination are called for. "Know thyself" rings as true today as when it was first inscribed to adorn the Delphi oracle. Morality has got nothing to do with counting noses or statistical studies, only with what's the right thing to do, with arriving at the best possible moral judgment.
All political debates, whether here or in congress are only about "what's the right thing to do" -- at bottom. I can't see how you folks can seriously discuss politics all the while ignoring its main underpinnings in ethics.
So yes, justice is necessary to human life, and yes, it's veiled by an aura of uncertainty, but isn't not irresolvable: in fact, it is always resolvable (however imperfectly), as testified by every single piece of law or legislation that gets passed. It's the quest and thirst for justice that is at the bottom of every upheaval, protest, revolution or revolt, yes, the quest for perfection, however unattainable, which fires it all. That's how moral ideals work.
You're argument, Anarcissie, seems to come down to the following: since no two people can ever agree in every single respect on what love is, then what's the value of love.
6 - Anarcissie
Indeed, that's a very good question, but taken straight rather than rhetorically, and considering 'value' to be a social rather than an individual entity, and one which must apply to many contexts rather than any particular context.
I disagree, however, that a thirst for justice is behind every upheaval or revolution, unless by 'thirst for justice' you simply mean 'desire to live and work one's will.' In any case, those who suppress revolutions generally seem to believe they are acting justly as well. Indeed, some of the major organizations of social repression in our communities are often named for 'justice' or something like it. And, too, the theories and practices of the revolutionaries and those of the established order they fight against are remarkably similar with regard to justicial matters, for example, Lenin's use of Tsarist police and juridical personnel, organizational principles, physical plant and general practices.
7 - roger nowosielski
I never engage in rhetoric when it comes to morals. That's a sophist's game, and Socrates devoted his entire life to discredit the sophist. And he paid dearly because they were in control.
Of course "justice" is a social thing, at least it aims at "the social," though it starts with the individual, every individual. It's the only thing that binds us, truly binds us, the only basis for building lasting and unseverable connections. There is none other. The one thing we humans have in common, the one thing that really counts. A human is fist and foremost a moral agent before anything else. And if he or she falls short of that, they're somehow diminished. Again, our only strength, our only worthwhile attribute.
I don't believe the counter-examples you're citing disprove the point. True, I spoke rather loosely, more intent on addressing the spirit than anything else. Both of us know that unscrupulous people will make use of even the purest of movements to their own ends, or, to be less severe in our criticism of them, resort to unseemly measures in order to preserve the vestige of the original, revolutionary idea. I'm not condoning any of that, just saying ...
But think of the liberation movements, for example, or the anti-colonialism struggle? Haven't they all been motivated by the unquenchable human desire for justice -- in these instances, political independence and freedom -- whatever "crimes" were committed in the interim? Think of the IRA revolt, for instance, or that of the Indian people, against the British rule (Freedom at Midnight), or to go further back, of Brave Heart. The examples are countless.
I'm glad we're talking at last. About time.
8 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
1 - I strongly agree that the greatest single factor in all major political upheavals is a desire for justice, although sometimes that desire is misdirected - and often intentionally misdirected - thanks to the ignorance of the populace.
2 - Look once more at the grand sweep of human history. It would not be inaccurate to see it as a journey towards a world of tolerance and, yes, even of justice. It's been full of starts and fits and stumbles (slavery, ethnic cleansing, etc.) punctuated by leaps and bounds (Magna Carta, the Renaissance, etc.), along the way...but the overall journey has been strongly towards the side of tolerance and justice even if all we've done is taken baby steps along the way...
...after all, even baby steps, if enough are taken, will bring one to the top of the highest mountain.
3 - I find it interesting that you say you never engage in rhetoric when it comes to morals. Perhaps you could say you refrain from the overuse of metaphor, but rhetoric? Come now!
9 - roger nowosielski
Rhetoric and morals don't mix, Glenn, unless one or the other is trying to be perverse.
What are you trying to say? I'd like to know, really?
10 - roger nowosielski
@8
Perhaps we associate different meanings with the term "rhetoric."
But I am glad we see eye to eye on some things. To cite Martin Luther King, "The moral arc of the universe bends at the elbow of justice."