I was remembering some parts of the gnostics bible,
There was the angels of wisdom, angels of love, and these two sects obeys god without questioning, then there was another sect which is angels of justice and questions god’s bidding. Stating that what he sometimes establish is injustice . But finally the angels of justice submitted to God, “Whatever pleases God” even if he establish inequality, or injustice for his creation.
Cannot injustice be right? Inequality be right? Sometimes.
extended thoughts, I know equality and slavery is wrong, but now capitalism, competition is harder, Not only you have to compete with the honor students for jobs, you have to compete against everyone and the women.
I know this is another silly thread I am typing , but I am honestly speaking this.
Well, I guess it depends on how you view justice. Since justice is contingent upon the morals of the individual percieving it, there is a lot of wiggle room.
In the case of the Angel, there really can’t be injustice in the situation because morality stems from God and implying a justice above God would be heresy. Of course, the Gnostics got around this with the concept of the Demiurge.
The whole idea of justice can be very tricky. Is it ‘just’ that person A is richer than person B? Is it ‘just’ if person A worked harder than person B? Is it ‘just’ if person A was born richer than person B? What if person A’s parents worked harder than person B’s parents? Is justice related to equality at all?
So, before we get to far into this discussion, would you mind providing a definition of ‘justice’ as you understood it in your question and we can go from there?
Certainty no one can tell you what is justice itself.
But justice that everyone is concern about is like a liberal, demand for equality, better wages, breaking tradtion, evolving. Once this happens, we have good laws, however, there are so much laws, one is so restricted he has no freedom of anything. As Rousseau would have put. Democracy is a way leading to restriction not freedom itself. Plato would say, a tyrant would be breed. I think I also remember plato saying that a state that is rule by monarchy or kinship, is really a free person rather than a slave.
From this point on I want to add.
Arnold Schwezhner, the gov’t of Cali. Now would he have had that position if he was not a movie super star? Since, teens love him, the majority favors over the scholarly voters. Now if Arnold Schwezner was qualified to become president, it is no doubt he would win. Because the majority love him not as he is good in politics, but good at winning the hearts of many by his glory of success in films. One this loved by many is ruled, tyranny comes about.
So, you are viewing justice as progressive equality?
Then, I would argue that inequality is necessary. Even if you eliminated financial inequality, other inequalities would arise that would have the same end effect. So, instead it is better to create a harmonic inequality, where people understand their place. Is this justice? Not by your definition. Yet, at the same time, is a barista recieving the same salary as a doctor justice? I would argue it is not, yet by your definition it is.
Same thing with progressivism. While there are traditions that are bulky and, ultimately, anachronistic, there are other traditions that ease social interaction and facilitate harmony. So where is the justice in removing useful traditions?