The World Of Justice
The World Aloha believes in these 10 virtues as the utmost importance; Justice, Tradition, Courage, Wisdom, Zeal, Prudence, Patience, Humility, Knowledge and Excellence. The first of these Virtues is Justice. Justice is The Power to Lead Righteous, Fair and unbiased in a situation where evil hath occurred. There are many forms and theories of Justice; Classical Justice, Social Justice, Economic Justice, Racial Justice, Environmental Justice, Poetic Justice, Spatial Justice and Criminal Justice.
Justice is a fundamental and complex concept that has been debated and discussed by philosophers, scholars, and theologians throughout history. It is a concept that seeks to understand and address the distribution of rights, benefits, and responsibilities within a society or community. The concept of justice encompasses various aspects, including social, economic, political, and moral dimensions. It involves determining what is fair, equitable, and right in different contexts, and it plays a critical role in shaping human societies and governing systems.
The concept of justice has evolved over time and has been interpreted differently by various philosophers, scholars, and societies. Different theories of justice have emerged, providing diverse perspectives on how justice should be understood and applied. From ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle to contemporary scholars like John Rawls and Amartya Sen, numerous thinkers have offered their insights into justice and its implications for individuals and societies. This essay aims to provide an introduction to justice by exploring its meaning, theories, and significance in contemporary society.
For example, killing seems to seen as universally evil, and yet killing being evil seems to be relative. For example, self defense seems to be a justifiable reason for killing; for it is only reasonable to defend oneself from harm. Now what entails justifiable self-defense tends to differ by where thou art and who's opinion ye asks. Some people and places with laws might say that all killings in the name of self defense is justifiable while others will state that the self defense must be equal or less to that of the harm, and others might even say no self defense is righteous and that ye have a duty to flee or let even to let the attack occur. The latter opinion might reason this with terms like "Two wrongs don't mean a right", thinking that using violent force against to perpetrator would cause even more violence than would originally occur or that ye attacking the perp back would make thee just as wrong as the attacker. Those of the first opinion may have an absolutist view of philosophy, Justice and The World and determine that all forms of self defense are justifiable. For example, someone robbing thee and that alone, no other criminal act can be killed by ye and that would be the correct use of self defense. Those of the middle opinion expressed, tend to believe themselves to be more reasonable people, who think that if the asailite were to try to kill thee then ye could then kill the perp and if the perp is just going to punch ye, then a punch back is all correct, or that subduing the attacker is even better or just as good as the punch; or that subduing the would-be killer is would be better than killing them.
Another example of the relativity of Justice, is what entails the justification of theft or stealing of property and peoples. In Today's World, it seems that it is universal that stealing people is seen as completely wrong and that those who do it are in the wrong. Though kidnapping and slavery are still practiced in some places to this day. Back in the day, the theft and enslavement of human beings seemed to be justified by some. For example, it seems totally olls korrect to Europeans to steal West Africans and ship them off to The Americas to become slaves. They saw this as just by reason of being more human and/or superior to those who had darker skin, and the darker the skin, the less human they were according to the Europeans. Today it is known that this notion is completely false and that all humans are the same biologically with the only difference literally being skin deep.
Theft of property can be seen differently by others and the law as well. To elaborate, let's say that a person was starving and needed food immediately. Would that person be justified stealing an apple from a grocery store or one who has more than enough? Let's take it up a notch, that person has a starving family to take care of and feed as well? Would they then be able to rob the plenty? Not good enough? Let's take it further, let's say this person also has no means of making an honest living, due to economic struggle and unwillingness of employers to give this person a job? Are they now justified in taking from those who have extra? Let's take it one final step; let's say this person and their family are in a war-torn state. Are they right to take from those who have more than enough to live? Depending on who ye ask, thou wilt get a different response for each scenario.
Another thing to think about is stolen land. Let's say an invading force successfully captures and establishes itself in an area of land that was once the property of another peoples. Also, let's establish that the invading force stays in this captured land for a long time and truly has become a permanent residence in the land. Are the previous occupants justified in taking back this land as their own? Some may say that we are One World, One People and that no one people's should lay claim to a plot of land but that all land is owned by all people and that we should share all of the land and live as one. No borders, no states, One World. Some will say that to the winner lays the spoils. The invading peoples won the fight and took over the territory so it belongs to them, a conqueror worldview. Another will say that the people who lost the land have a right to take it back, finders keepers. They might posit that since the land was theirs first and then was taken, that they have a right to take it back; retribution. Other will tell ye that since the invading peoples have established a permanent residence in the land for such a long period of time, that it is now truly theirs, or that the people's kick out reconquering the territory would be wrong due to the people's being there now are the predecessors of the original invaders and that it would be unjust to take it from people who had nothing to do with the taking of the land and that should not pay for the crimes of their ancestors.
Forms of Justice Action differs around The World as well. Whether punishment, rehabilitation, or a mixture, everyone has a different opinion on how Justice is to be actualized. Some believe in being tough on crime, and other believe that fixing the behavior of the criminal, is to be done with compassion and/or teaching of ways to avoid doing the criminal act again. Justice is a complex subject with many different types, and philosophies of it, this will be discussed in the main chapters of Justice.