Justice is what? Principle of justice
There is no person who would not know what justice is. And even more so injustice. Schoolchildren are given unfair grades, adults are unjustly deprived of bonuses, and pensioners are also paid unfairly.
Meaning of term
So what is justice? Man, this issue has long been. Although with the meaning of the term everything was always very clear. Justice is a reward commensurate with an act. A situation in which an action receives a logical continuation in the form of a response, negative or positive, depending on the quality of the action and its significance. It seems to be all simple. Action is a commodity, justice is a justified price. Elementary scheme. Here are just a lot of questions. What price will be justified? What is taken into account, by what criteria? The duration of the work on the production of goods, its complexity? Or maybe the actual cost? Or utility for the buyer, potential benefit from use?
Public understanding of justice
For example, the real cost of "Viagra" is very low, it is a cheap medicine. But everyone understands why it is so expensive. And no one even particularly indignant. Similar in composition cardiopreparations are cheap, because a person’s life depends on them. And “Viagra” with an almost identical composition, with exceptional ease of production is expensive, because you can pay for the optional pleasure. And everyone agrees with this. Insulin is free, cardiopathies are at a low price, Viagra is expensive. The principle of justice in the representation of the majority is not violated.
So where does the scale of proportions come from, which allows you to measure and weigh, to determine whether the reward corresponds to the deed? How did the rules enshrined in civil, administrative, criminal law? Why so?
Now it seems to everyone that justice is an obvious concept. Familiar to all members of a single dominant culture, "prices" are perceived as absolute and the only possible. And those who think differently, who use another scale, of course, they are mistaken!
Alas, justice is a concept not absolute, but relative. If you take
legally enshrined standards of justice of ancient Babylon or Greece, it turns out that human life is not at all the highest value. And it all depends on who this particular person was. A slave is a couple of coins, a commoner is a little more, a notable citizen is already quite a decent amount. And the right of vendetta, seemingly dictated by the principle of equal retribution for the death of a loved one, did not apply to everyone and not always. It was also directly related to the social status of the victim. If someone now declares that the life of an oligarch or a TV star costs more than the life of an ordinary employee, and offers to introduce a more severe punishment for the murder of a high-ranking official, his ideas will not find understanding in society.
Cultural features of understanding justice
At the same time, in countries living under Sharia law, throwing stones at a woman who has betrayed her husband is fair. In India, ostracizing a rape victim is also fair. The social norms of culture suggest precisely this ratio of action and retribution.It turns out that justice is a convention that exists only in the evaluator's head. Changing ideas about the rules - changing the ratio of action and retribution. In medieval Japan, a samurai could kill a peasant with absolute impunity, now such a worldview seems wild. The evolution of social norms led to the evolution of ideas about justice, and consequently, changes in the system of punishments. Today, the proud descendant of the samurai will simply be arrested and imprisoned, having previously conducted a psychiatric examination - it is too strange to act. Maybe this man is crazy? Normal people cannot think that it is natural to kill peasants.
Justice in the representation of the people
Proverbs about justice often reflect this ambivalence of the term. If you recall those who know everything from childhood ... For example, about
crickets and the bears that belong to them is obviously a saying connected with the external assessment of social status. That which is possible for a man cannot be for a woman. What the good master can do is not a student. That which is possible for the rich cannot be for the poor. On the one hand - fair.On the other ... somehow not very. Not always the cricket has a chance to change the hearth. Should he consider it fair?
More proverbs about justice are linked efforts and reward. What goes around comes around. It would seem fair. And what about those who are not able to sow? Even in the figurative sense? Even in the understanding of "what a hi, is the answer"? An autist will most likely not be able to work productively. He cannot even be benevolent enough to deserve the consideration and good attitude. How to be in this situation? What is fair?
Implementation of the principles of justice
Often, in colloquial speech, justice is understood not as a problem of “crime and punishment”, but as the justification of remuneration, or at least the correctness of distribution. Do you need to divide equally or depending on the personal contribution of each?And what about people deprived of the opportunity to take a significant part in the production process? How should society treat people with disabilities, old people or people of creative professions, those who do not produce a useful product?
Social justice is now also regulated by legislation, and it is based on the principle of equality. Equality before the law, equality of opportunity, equality of remuneration.But then a logical question arises: “What exactly is the determining factor: the means or the result?
Why is justice unfair?
The picture below perfectly illustrates the problem that social justice constantly faces, trying to keep within the framework of the principle of equality.
You can try to equalize the benefits provided, but in this case the principle of justice, that is, equal satisfaction of needs, will be violated. This is illustrated by the first and third parts of the picture. The capabilities of the tallest man are obviously higher than those of the smallest. And if you try to equalize everyone in opportunities, it turns out that the distribution of wealth is unfair (the second part of the picture). Why is the smallest two boxes? Is it a high fault that he is taller? Why does he get less?
Based on this, it can be argued that social justice is an unattainable ideal.
Ideals and their implementation
Either society equalizes everyone in receiving benefits, and then those who work more are justly indignant, or the remuneration is directly linked to the contribution to the common cause, and then people with disabilities are left out.And a reasonable balance, a certain consensus that solves the most acute problems in the first and second cases, will not suit everyone. That is why there is no social system that everyone would like, and with any, even the most reasonable legislation, such kind of conflicts are inevitable. Justice is demanded by everyone, only they understand it differently.
And, arguing about high ideals, we must remember that the ideal does not exist, it is an abstract concept, an abstract one. Besides, besides justice, there is also mercy, common sense, objectivity. And the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Justice alone is not enough for its realization.