The concept of justness is a subjective reality. Justice is not present in any one person, justice appears to be present only in consensus. There is no just, justice, only the presence of action and consequence for persons in a consensus regarding their concept of justice. Justice is only just to those who have conformed to their idea of justice and have helped to create it. Those who are effected by the justice that is placed around them and do not agree with it are being treated unfairly. For those people there is no justice.
Without total consensus defining justice there is no justice. If there is a justice without conformity it is not just, and therefore is not manifested as justice, but as a form of government. If we put aside religion, deities, and God centered ideologies, we can find no true justness. Justice is a reflection of justness. Without the existence of justness there will never be true justice. What we call justice, should be called consensus and conformity to laws and mores.
When we move to this point, we find that we are actually discussing government. For there will never be true justice, only our conformed moral sense of what is acceptable and unacceptable. This once again leads us to many forms of government. If we discuss justice in the sense of divine intervention and religious beliefs then justice has a whole new meaning. Justice now becomes the writings and beliefs of a conformed religion. Catholicism for example, follows the teachings of the Ten Commandments, and the word of God that is written in the Bible.
The Term Paper on Universality and Reversibility: Justice and Fairness
The categorical imperative incorporates two criteria for determining moral right and wrong: universalizability and reversibility. Universalizability means the person’s reasons for acting must be reasons that everyone could act on at least in principle. Reversibility means the person’s reasons for acting must be reasons that he or she would be willing to have all others use, even as a ...
Although the ideas and philosophical thinking in these writings have extremely righteous and moral views they can only go as far as to teach you how to live morally. Do unto others as you wish others to do unto you. Some believe the Gold Rule is the only true justice, according to Jesus, justice was not eye for an eye. Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that de spitefully use you, and persecute you.
These were some of the morals that people believed to be justice. What if perhaps there was no God, or deities of any kind, then all of this is boils down to morality. Even then, what defines morality We cannot define morality as justice for it has no clearly objective ground on which to define it. Even as an individual we cannot find justice. If each of us were alone in the woods, and away from all forms of conformed justice, justice would not be present. For we must conform to the laws of nature.
One may believe that it is unjust that he / she has to collect food before winter, and therefore he / she decides to rest instead of saving food. As a consequence, over the winter he or she will starve, because they did not conform to the highest form of natural government, which is nature. Nature moves according to its own laws which people may experience as unjust… He who searches for justice will only find millions of forms of government, his search will be everlasting until he realizes that the only justice he will ever know is his own subjective belief of what is just… Even then, who are we to define our own justice.
