What is justice? I will offer my analysis here, and then I want to know what you think about it.
Perhaps most Forum members can agree with me that justice is relevant to ethics, that the two concepts are closely related, that “morality without justice is blind, ” to paraphrase what Kant said on another topic. First we must present some preliminaries so as to better grasp the analysis of “justice.”
{In the following analysis I shall employ some tools first suggested by the philosopher Robert S. Hartman, a true, creative, genius. I refer to his “Dimensions of Value”.} They are in turn, specifically,the fulfillment of, respectively, a synthetic concept, an analytic concept, and a singular concept. (I use these terms in the sense which Kant used them in his book,Logik. There he was speaking of concepts rather than propositions.}[size=85] You can find out more details about the value dimensions by clicking on the first two links available in the signature below. They, along with the other two, are safe to open, and nothing is for sale.[/size]
Hartman has written at some length (– so I shall condense it here. He explained that incongruence or incoherence results in what he has named Transposition of Value – which is a dis-value. The fulfillment of a synthetic concept is called: Systemic Value. The fulfillment of an analytic concept is: Extrinsic Value. And the fulfillment of a singular concept is to be known as: Intrinsic Value.}
[The following is a quote from one of my essays, describing Hartman’s Formal Axiology (value logic) as it applies to Ethics:
“A good hammer has everything a hammer is supposed to have, in your picture of a hammer. A good person likewise has a full set of features and characteristics that a person would ideally have - such as empathy, kindness, authenticity, compassion. To call something “good” is to say it has full value, and that it completely fulfills the meaning of its concept.
According to Value Science there are three types of basic values. They are Systemic Value, Extrinsic Value, and Intrinsic Value. Abbreviated these are S, E, and I. And the Value Psychologist, Dr. Leon Pomeroy, tells us that it is as important to know our SEIs as it is to know our ABCs.
Here are some examples:
Thoughts are S-values; things are E-values; persons and involvements are I-values. They result when the basic value dimensions are applied.
People usually S-Value theories, systems, ideologies, blueprints, plans, zip codes, circuit diagrams, technical language, black-and-white thinking, scientific models, and all the “isms.” They are appropriately valued Systemically.
E-Value is the valuation people usually place upon things of this world, practicalities, empirical matters, know-how, savoir-faire, social, everyday concerns, functionality, diplomacy, worldly considerations, categories, etc.
You are likely to I-Value your mother, your spouse, your dearest ones, unique persons you love, beloved treasures, masterpieces of art, priceless items, etc. We value those Intrinsically whenever we identify with and bond with them.
Value scientists speak of those three values as “dimensions of value.” We need them all. The three value dimensions form a hierarchy with S-value worth the least; E-value worth infinitely more; and I-value the most precious of all – worth far, far more than any E-value. The correct hierarchy of values, in symbols, is S < E < I. And thus to place S above I; or to give more weight to E than to I would be a fallacy.
The highest of the three basic values is Intrinsic Value, or I-value.” The discipline of “Ethics” arises when persons are Intrinsically valued, according to value scientists [i.e., Formal Axiologists.]. all of this is explained clearly in detail in the transcript of an informal talk given by Hartman: “The Measurement of Value.” ]
Now that the preliminaries are out of the way, my contention here is that Formal Axiology - which serves us well as the meta-language for Ethics - has something to say about the concept “Justice” that may be helpful. What do you think: does the applications of the tools of this new science of values, when applied to this concept elucidate the subject?
I shall define JUSTICE as meaning: “the restoration and maintenance of a balance.”
There are at least four modes of justice, on a continuum from worst to best; this analysis says that justice is a matter of degree rather than just “black or white.”
These dimensions are: Transposed Justice (fragmented value), which is Retribution or Retaliation, an “eye for an eye,” which eventually “renders everybody blind…”
Next, there is – when the Systemic Value dimension is applied to “justice” – Equality or Equal treatment under law. “Every one is entitled to his day in court,” “All are equal in the eyes of the law.” [And Law itself can be analyzed by the axiological dimensions into Statute Law, Common Law, and Moral Law, each one worth more than the last.]
And then there is Compensation or Equity: one doesn’t trade an apple for an automobile, quid quo pro, a judge taking into consideration the circumstances of the perpetrator’s life, etc. This is the result of Extrinsic Value being applied to “justice.”
When Intrinsic Value is applied, we get: Rehabilitation or Reconciliation. An illustration of this form of justice may be what was the practice in some African tribe when a murderer’s dispensation was that he had to enter into the extended family of his victim, and assume all the responsibilities of the one he is replacing, and in this way he paid his debt to the community. Recently, in the Western World we find that the practice of “creative sentencing” on the part of some jurists often contributes to rehabilitation of offenders.
{The notion of Justice results in law, in social contracts. There are three major types of law.
b[/b]Juridical; written codes; legislation
b[/b] Common Law
b[/b] The Moral Law ; also conclusions of Ethical Science.
Each outweighs the former in value.}
This is the formal axiological analysis of Justice, and perhaps it sheds some light on the topic. I believe it does. I’d like to know if you can improve upon, or enhance, this definition and analysis of the concept “Justice.”
I recognize, of course, that there is more to be said on the topic of justice.
Let’s examine its opposite for a moment. An injustice is a mismatch
(between someone’s happiness and what we take to be
their merit). For example, a crook must not live high
while his victim suffers. In every injustice something is
out of balance.
Justice requires giving others their due.
Reparation is a name for the obligation we have to
compensate others for past wrongs or for a previous
wrongful act. The highest form of justice is
reconciliation or rehabilitation. [Vengeance is the lowest
form.]
To sum it all up, someone who cares, who has selfrespect
and enough sense to respect others, would
focus upon the facilitating institutions and social
arrangements so that human beings are not placed in
situations where they will act badly.