if anyone has any opinion on this topic, it will be greatly appreciated.
I suppose it depends on whether you hold that there is an absolute universal moral or that it is relative and culturally-conditioned. If it is the former then universal justice is applicable too. But then I am begging the question here, namely what is justice. That concept have to be clarified first before we can evaluate your question.
If you believe in karma - yes, justice is a universal force. Independently of cultural and societal conditions, there is a subtle matrix embedding the traces and giving rise to the seeds of our actions (mental and verbal included).
What do you mean by “universal”
Please define this word. Also “justice.”
to answer this question one must ask ones self if a tree falls in a jamaican cup of coffee do the birds in russias sovviet republic of china understand when chickens drink coffee
by justice i mean “to judge an act or ethic to be morally right” and by universal i mean “in all societies on earth, primitive and modern”. 
wow!
I do not understand a single word you said, really! 
You beg many many questions in the short phrase, eg:
-
what is moral?
-
what is right?
-
why “judge” the act or ethic and not the intent or motive?
-
what of the act that you judge? its consequences? or its economic value, ie cost vs benefit of the effort expanded in the act? or of its degree of change/disruption it caused? and how far out in time do you judge an act or its effects? and confined only to a certain space, like a country? for each and every act has a rippling effect of consequences in time and space.
-
what is ethic? why ethic? what of ethics is to be judged?
-
why judge or measure an act or ethic against a moral code and not something else? say one’s or society’s self fullfilment and advancement or progress or happiness or wealth or whatever?
-
why judge at all? whats the necessity or its value or the purpose in even entertaining the notion of justice?
Let’s not get caught up in semantics. Obviously, defining terms is important - but come on, we don’t have that much time. I think we can agree on the usual usage of these terms. There are two major arguments with respect to this topic:
-
Universal truths are possible and undeniable. Every person is able to judge what is ethically or morally right based on reason, which is itself universal. Culture affects sujective judgement, but in the end every person can remove themselves from their specific context and derive universal truths based on reason. To this end, the western world (and its liberal ideology, defined broadly and loosely) is usually seen to be the standard to which every other culutre must compare - most of which are found to be lacking in many respects.
-
Truth claims are both relative and/or impossible. On the extreme, no truth can ever exist except what each person accepts as their own. On the more moderate view, truths claims are culturally specific and therefore cannot be compared with other cultural truths. The west represents just one form of human development, not necessarily superior and fundamentally we are unable to compare it to other cultural forms.
These are the two major positions. Some try to bridge the gap, but usually collapse back into one of the two major positions. For example, Charles Taylor (See the ‘politics of Recognition’ in Amy Gutmann ed. ‘Multiculturalism’) argues that to be able to judge ‘the other’ we must first recognize that all forms of living mean something to people and we must stive for a better understanding of the extent to which misrecogizing their way of life affects them. Thus, we would be less compelled to react in our typical liberal way to some culutral practices: ‘That is horrible’ or whatever. I think this collapses into the liberal position - but the argument does seem right, we should try to understand others before judging them.
This is a hot topic right now in political philosophy, and a lot of exciting work is being done in this area. I myself am not sure where I fall, both sides have a point. In the first, some cultural practices do seem too disgusting and immoral to simply say: ‘that’s just the way they do it over there, we can’t judge that’ (especially, say, female genital mutilation). On the other hand, I don’t buy into a lot of our own cultural practices that we view as inherently just - some other cultures have values that we don’t that are good (especially for me some communal and environmental values). I am a critic of western society - capitalism, liberal democracy etc. so I have leanings to the second position. But, I’m not sure I buy the whole relativity argument - I want to find a way to have a universal justice based on values I see as just. Of course, the counter is that I am an imperialist dominator etc. etc. etc. Make up your own mind …
Sure. But we must be first certain that we are conceptually clear about the “usual usage of these terms” and what the real issues in the topic are.
For example from what you wrote, in the first position proposed, “ethics or morals” can be arrived at by “reason”, and as “reason” is universal, therefore universal “truths” exists. Implicitly “ethics and morals” have been equated with “truths” and also that judgement is the process of conforming to the “truth”, rather than say, restoring the bad consequences of some acts. This indeed may be so but is it the “usual usage of these terms”? The same meaning of these terms are evident in the second position, now with the introduction of the concept “cultural truths”.
That reasoning is universal also does not necessarily mean that we arrive at the same thoughts or ideas or beliefs. Some reason by means of rationalism, others by mysticism, and yet others by absurdity. Even if all are rational, such as in the West, presumably, I have yet to see a universal agreement of what is moral or ethical, eg is there agreement whether there is God or god or gods? and that such an entity is to be the basis for all morality? If there is such a thing as God and that all humans are to conform to this ideal, then there is such a thing as universal justice. The first position is actually close to this but with God replaced by Reason.
Now if there is no God can there be such a thing as justice, particularly universal justice? Perhaps there is based on some universal characteristic of being human, which fundamentally is “essential human-ness”. Then justice is that conforming to this or restoring any departure from it, and injustice its violation or to deny its conformance. Is the Human Rights Convention the appropriate vehicle to define this essence of humankind? Or is it just impossible to do? Or maybe we may find that we go back to the notion of God all over again, for our human essence is inseperably bound to a spirit that is beyond mere life as we know it.
Don’t get me wrong, I totally understand what you mean.
I think you hit on some of the major issues here. In keeping with the mainstream Anglo-American philosophy I read on this issue, I must reject the notion of a God or supreme being. So reason comes in to save our morality. I agree with you, I don’t think that everyone can agree on a universal definition of ‘justice.’ But what I meant is not that everyone agrees, only that , on this view, this possibility exists. There is a ‘reasonable’ discourse in which we debate substantive moral issues. And many western academics believe that this is a viable project - indeed the only project possible. Habermas, Rawls, Barry, Gutmann, etc. etc. These philosophers have put their hats in this ring.
You seem to be arguing against a universal justice - which is fine. As I said, I have much simpathy for this view and the reasons why many hold it. With respect to morality, it isn’t necessarily that these philosophers believe in a natural view of morality - that is, a morality that exists outside of humans which we stive to comprehend, a truth out there somewhere. On the contrary, many hold a constructive view. This means that we make our own truths and therefore they could be different for different people. But on a fundamental level we can debate what is right and what is wrong. The relativistic view precludes this. You are right to say that Reason has replaced God. This is a salient feature of philosophy since the Enlightenment. But again, we need not be talking of a natural universal justice given by some being, just that we could invent something that could be universal. So that goes against what you are arguing - there doesn’t have to be a God to have universal justice according to these philosophers.
Again, I’m not disagreeing with you. I just haven’t totally made up my mind yet - maybe I never will. But this is the real position in the debate today as I understand it.
The possibility of arriving at an artifical construct based on ‘man-made’ truths called justice, to which you get universal agreement, even to enforce it? Wow! what a dream! I think a project to make the world believe in God is easier and more viable, for at least we have divine promise of help there! 
Sure, but what is the alternative? Western society takes a very broad view of the concept of justice, limiting it to the basic structure of society. It doesn’t purport to be an all encompassing system, just a basic set of principles that will allow for society to exist. Maybe that’s all we can hope for, or maybe even that is too capricious. I guess we’ll see.
I do not believe that we can ever achieve any kind of universal justice. It will be a constant works in progress, stumbling from one thing to another, always imperfect, incomplete and unenforceable. Earthly justice would have achieve its real purpose and true benefits by just communicating the notion and to giving a foretaste and awareness of what true justice can possibly be, which, to me, is only possible in God.
Alternative? Alternative to what? What is anyone trying to achieve in pushing the notion of “universal justice”? Just for the academic or human pleasure of arriving at God without God? Or indeed impose true justice on the world for the sake of the betterment, goodness, fredom, or whatever of the world?
Earthly justice is just a demonstration of authority, of retribution, of acountability, and of righteousness. So whether there is a universal way of demonstrating this to me is irrelevant as long as it is demonstrated, even by ungodly and evil authorities, either positively or negatively.
Thanks guy’s that was really helpful. You put forward many interesting views and they have helped me understand the question and the possibility of getting an answer. Thanks
Sterri