What is justice?
The terrorist said he had no remorse when they started quizzing him on the compulsions behind the recent Mumbai carnage-was that ideological or dictated by religion? Actually he believed that was what God wanted him to do. Was the young man not disturbed by the underlying inequity of unrelated people dying merely for the sake of his securing a place in a paradise described in the holy book? The question is related to whether there is a thing called justice which is built upon much larger principles than religion which also advocates some kind of a sense of justice and fair play but only for those who practice that religion.
The difficulty with justice is its variability in different spatial and temporal contexts .Today we call the burning of St.Joan a barbarous thing but at the time it took place not many consciences were disturbed. Similarly in the religious law practised in certain countries ,several things which are shocking to another culture take place day in and day out and not many raise heir voices in those places. Does that mean that there is nothing called the absolute justice ,a kind of universal justice which applies to all places and times .The second issue is whether justice applies only to man's relationship with a fellow-human or whether man vs.other fellow-creatures justice is also to be thought of. Since we cannot decide all this we lapse into what we know best-a few cliches about universal brotherhood,humanism,etc.
Keywords:
About jagannath
A banker by profession.My chief interests are poetry writing and photography . I have not published any book so far .
Connections
Justice
jagannath rao adukuri,
A very interesting question indeed. There is a problem with justice as a philosophical concept as it has several meanings, stretching from fairness to punishment. Often people think in terms of either one of these - is it just that they should get this salary when the other fellow gets more - shouldn't a person who rapes minors get a longer punishment, because they have caused more harm? In the case of the terrorist, we feel that he should be punished for what he did - and secondly we feel that what he did was unjust from our perspective. I think you can resolve these questions by talking about the two components of justice separately. I believe that in both cases we should apply the harm principle - if someone harms another - that is wrong - they should face consequences - but those consequences should not harm them - but reform them. Secondly regarding the concept of fairness in religions - that is not really a problem - unless the concept of fairness is undistributed and involves harm to another - then it is wrong. Harm here is primarily physical. However psychological harm with physical correlates is wrong too. Most religions are unjust in both senses. They seek to punish in a way that is inhumane - and their sense of fairness is unjust according to standards regarding physical and psychological harm. When the young terrorist takes the lives of others - he has caused great harm - which he has been taught is acceptable - and he will be rewarded in heaven as a martyr to a cause. If he wishes to believe that - it is ok - but what he did was wrong. There are thousands of belief systems - all of them direct human conduct - many through a reward system. These are all perfectably acceptable as conceptual beliefs - but any physical or psychological harm that takes place in the real world - are wrong. It does not matter who or what you are - you simply cannot harm another.