To save time, you can skip to the summary.
Dictionary definitions of justice refer to the adherance toward a set of principals. Due cause. I’m not well-read so maybe you can point me to titles or authors that I’m gravitating toward, or terms I could better use.
I want to know if there’s reason for this split in my mind on the meaning of justice.
Justice as Vindication . . .
Vengeance, reaping, intentional suffering. Not used to set an example, to encourage peace. Purely for the sake of atoning for previous cruelties. Based on the ideal that others have implemented their free will to harm others, and that even if such future cruelties appear entirely preventable, those former cruelties must still be atoned for. Think of the cruelties you most greatly detest, and the people on trial for those actions. Do you believe that it’s out of pure instinct by which you desire their suffering? (I think the loaded question is warranted, sorry). OR do you believe there is something about nature which you understand, which makes you reason that cruelties must be matched with suffering (?), just as heroism, say, deserves a benefactor.
Do you believe cruelty deserves suffering for its own sake?
Justice as utility . . .
Complications arise which can easily be given scapegoats. Ultimately, there’s no “evil” and people are simply acting on their basic needs. Those complications can spread, and in addition to the cause of suffering, can destroy society as a whole until there’s nothing but a dead lump. So out of resistance to this outcome, we create justice to set an example for others, that suffering is merely an unfortunate necessity in keeping a message respected. And that correction against soemeone’s free will is still with the intent of maximizing their free will anyway- just eliminating the spread of complications.
Do you believe people need to be corrected purely to prevent further damage, and is to cause minimum suffering?
I suggest the two are compatible. That a trial should clarify which corrective actions are to achieve which purpose- and also try to achieve a bit of both.
I imagine myself on trial before a jury, and picture either of these two phrases as ridiculous “We don’t want to fix you, we just want to hurt you for what you did.” Likewise: “We don’t want to hurt you, we just want to fix you.” I believe the more realistic response is: “We want to hurt you for what you did, but we also want to fix you.”
I guess I deserve the accusation of trying to revive some dark age values which we’ve spilt blood to eliminate. On the other hand, I think those dark age values of killing evil or atoning for cruelties would have been in more fairness had they not been based on such sick beliefs like the idea that many women whom were probably rape victims, or prostituting for food and security, were “tempting” and “dirtying.” - thus “purified” by burning. It is people that upheld such sick values that I feel deserve justice as vindication more than simple utility. I think many religious values are trying to substitute “God said so” to hide “I hate you” or “I hate what you get away with.” Or saying: “We want to rid you of the demon possessing you, and god says that that requires ritual pain to your body.” to hide the real reason: “We want to hurt you for what you did. We need some structure to make it look more legitamete.”
I don’t consider “God said so” to be such a legitamete reason. But I also believe that hatreds for cruelties have their place. Not just the prevention of cruelties for the sake of maintaining order. I don’t consider myself a hate-filled wretch, but I also don’t consider myself some pure benevolent being merely tinted by confusions. I want to see justice in both senses illustrated here and my premise is that so do you.
Finally: Please no one respond to my post with a short sentence like: “You don’t make any sense.” I’m sorry if that’s so, but I’ve seen people do that after a long post, and the responding post remained. I don’t know why.
SUMMARY
Do you believe that justice is partially because cruelties deserve suffering? And partially to prevent further cruelty?