Say some people in society have been abused and neglected. Therefore, their ability to pursue specific justice against their abusers has been disabled.
However, their ability to pursue general justice remains. For example, they might encounter WMDs which enable them to wipe out society in general.
Are the abused entitled to wipe out society, or are they obligated to endure their abuse and negligence? For example, consider how everyone in society wasn’t abusive or negligent, and how it’s feasible for non-abused peers to become successful.
As an alternative, are the abused entitled to revolutionize society in order to discipline the abusive and negligent, but as a side-effect, also impact the lives of those who weren’t abusive and possibly successful even if they aren’t destroyed?
Abuse and negligence begin in the home first, between a parent or both, of a child. Some children are neglected, which is abuse, others are not. So why are some children abused, but not others? Why are some children wanted, but not others? It is from these questions, that negligence and abuse can ultimately be solved. Regardless the source of abuse, their effects usually linger for a lifetime. The manifestation of what people call “diseases”, mostly represent underlying abuses and negligence which occurred between parents and children, and then later become abstracted to state and citizen. The citizen is the child of the state. And society sometimes neglects its citizens. A drought or famine is the easiest example of this, as millions of people can die, and have died, during mass starvation throughout history.
Why are some humans fed, but not others? A fuller context is required to answer this.
It’s negligent to talk about negligence while neglecting its causes.
People have reasons to abuse others. Is abuse of one person against another ever justified? How about neglecting some instead of others, when dozens of people are starving to death?
Would you feed your own children first, before strangers, during a famine? If you would, then you just admitted that negligence has reason.
I’m not denying that parenting is the origin of people’s existence, or even that parents have an obligation to make sure their children are sociably disciplined.
What I am saying is that isn’t the only case. If you exist among a group of peers where parents aren’t available to interact with, it doesn’t do much good to talk about parents.