Is life just?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Is life/the world just? If so, on what basis? If not, then does it have any meaning? As humans, we seem to have an innate sense of justice. Yet, if life is not really just, then why do we have this built-in ideal?

It is true that we as human beings can take steps to ‘create’ justice in society, to some degree. But can we ever really reach the ideal? Also, if we can’t, is there really ANY justice? For example, if I was a father who had two children and gave one a banana and the other a banana, I would supposedly be just. But if the same father gave one child a sandwhich but not the other, when they were both hungry, I would be said to be unjust. So ultimately, am I, as the father, a just or unjust father? I have demonstrated both justice and injustice. We would probably argue that the father is unjust, on the basis that he should behave justly all (or at least most) of the time.

So, life might have dished out ‘good parents and a good upbrining’ to two different people - that was just. But life also dished out severe health problems (unavoidable ) thougthout life to one of the people, but excellent general health throughout life to the other person. Ultimately then, is life just or unjust? Surely we must conclude that life is ultimately unjust in that it didn’t distribut justice consistanly, all the time.

Most of us would probably admit that ultimately life is unjust or unfair. Yet people are quick to say 'Why me?" when they get very sick. Or they say ‘That’s not fair’ to something. Why, if we are aware life is unjust, are people continually shocked and surprised at the injustices of life?

Suppose there are 2 students. They are each competing for the same scholorship. One does extremely well in their exams. The other does very poorly. The successful student succeeded because they had good parental support, a sharp mind, and a driven personality. The one who did poorly had no parental support, was lacking in confidence due to some devistating experineces they had encountered at different times, and developed a chronically disabling sickness during their studies. THe successful student won the scholorship. The successful student experienced a lot of pride fromtheir success, especially when they found out how poorly thier rival did. The student with poor grades
expreinced some guilt about their failure.

But is it logical for the winning student to feel pride? Is it logical for the failing student to feel guilt? It was solely the injustices of life that brought about the difference in achievement. Is it reasonable to experience pride through the result of injustice?

Isn’t most of life like the example of the 2 students. Differences usually come about through advantages or disadvantages in life. If we believe this, why does everyone carry on like the world is just, or that justice is obtainable - dishing out pride here and shame there. Are people just burrying their heads in the sand, misleadng themselves and playing some mindless illogical game?

Also, going back to the healthy and sick people again. What right does the person who is experiencing good health to enjoy life fully, when the person with bad health perhaps can’t? We as human beings have capacity for empathy. If we are truely empathetic, would it not be impossible to really enjoy life while the other was suffering so? Does failing to carry out our empathetic ability actually equate with burrying our heads in the sand and ignoring the idea that life is ultimately unjust. After all, to bury this idea in our subconscious and superficially pretend that life is really ‘just’ somehow would permit one to enjoy life to the full while the other is suffering. (After all, with such a theory, on could figure never mind - everything will work out for the best - or will work out 'just - in the end.)

And if their is no ultimate justice in life, does life actually make any sense? ( ie. is there any meaning at all. ) After all, isn’t a sense of justice what drives us all in our desire to make sense of the world, or life. How can one truely live life up if they are truely emapthetic toward a suffering person, when they know that it could just as easily be them who was the sufferer. In that sense have they not ‘stolen’ the health and life of the suffering person by wallowing in the fullness of life. Are they not ‘rubbing it in’ for the suffering person, so to speak. If life is about giving and recieving to ourself and to others, as social beings, doesn’t this centre on the concept of justice, or assume the ideal of justice is attainable? Where does that then leave any sensible or logical conclusion on the meaning of life?

What do you think?

2

Doesn’t anyone have an opinion?

3

We don’t have an innate sense of Justice.

Read Locke’s arguments against innate knowledge, look around the world. The standard counter arguments are sacrifice, polynogamy/monogamy, and the difference between individualism in the West/Communism in Russia.

Also just look at the evolving systems of justice, from the classic eye for an eye, tooth for tooth to the modern one of utility with rehabilitation and all that, if we had an innate sense of justice, how did it change?

Society teaches you justice.

4

.

Read Locke’s arguments against innate knowledge, look around the world. The standard counter arguments are sacrifice, polynogamy/monogamy, and the difference between individualism in the West/Communism in Russia.

Also just look at the evolving systems of justice, from the classic eye for an eye, tooth for tooth to the modern one of utility with rehabilitation and all that, if we had an innate sense of justice, how did it change?

All societies, all peoples in the world have some sort of organised justice system. Although what they constitute as justice varies. The fact that they all have a sense of justice strongly suggests that it is innate.

You argue that “We don’t have an innate sense of Justice. Society teaches you justice.” If we don’t have an innate concept of justice, where did the idea of justice come from in the first place?

We have a concept of justice because of our innate capacity for abstract thinking. We’re able to be empathetic, we’re able to count, measure, etc.

An appropriate justice system is logical and reasonable. If you doubt this, consider the opposite. Do you think a good system of justice is illogical and unreasonable? I doubt it.

I guess as a society we can create a certain amount of justice in the world based on logic and reason. But the main issue I was addressing in my original post was whether there is ‘natural justice’. Does the rest of existence comply with our innate sense of what is logical and reasonable justice. If not, why not? And how then do we fully address the issue of justice? Can we exist in a meaningful fashion if natural justice fails to comply with our reason?

Is there a dilemma for the human race if our meaning is not compatable with our environment. If our meaning which stems from the full capacity of our sense of justice does not match the rest of nature, what meaning do we have?