The Problem of Justice 8/28/2014

There seems to be a few problems when it comes to implementing justice. One thing that is a
problem is the connotation it has received. Another aspect that should be considered is how to make it
fair and just if justice is not just then how can it be called so? And a final question is: It is even possible
to attain true fair morally sound justice without it contradicting itself? I shall at least begin to discuss
this issue tonight, and add notes later as I discover answers or more questions to ask about the
problems.
The first issue is the negative connotation that justice has received. When you think about what
justice is, dont you picture punishment? I do. I think of prisons and judges handing out prison
sentences maybe even death. I think about cops locking people away. It reminds me of a stand-up
performance from Doug Stanhope when he had a new cop recruit in the front row, and he said
something to the effect of, If you want to know what justice really is, come see this guy in about ten
years. Thats the beginning of the problem.
I know I touched on what dislike about cops in my essay entitled No Space in the System for
Free Will so I wont try to visit old ground too much, but I really wish cops were encouraged to take up
a new image. I constantly see Facebook pages being shared by my friends from a group called CopBlock
(I believe) about all the shitty things cops do. And how about all the anti-police songs rappers have
done? Not to mention the criticism police have been getting from John Olivers show. Cops shouldnt
be at odds with the society like this. The only way this might be acceptable is if the society was immoral
and the police force was protecting the rights of others despite the fact a lot of people didnt like it.
However, that isnt what is happening. What is happening are cops arresting students, just trying to live
life and not hurting anyone, for arbitrary laws that dont infringe on the rights of others. What is going
through a cops head when he puts a young person in the back of their cruiser just for having a joint?
Does he think this is justice? Is this person a danger to society? What is going on? Are cops thinking
about anything other than what they are told to do? Wisdom requires us to consider our own moral
actions, so why do they lack it?
Another problem Im concerned about is whether justice can really be known, and whether it
can be enforced in all cases. If you leave justice up to the objective law, then you arent allowed to
consider certain specific cases and general applications lead to specific injustices. Imagine young
siblings, what if a brother accidentally kills his sister while wrestling around with her? Does this kid
really need to be locked up? He had no bad intentions, and he has suffered more than he deserved
already. A jail sentence is just adding more unnecessary torture. Im also concerned about the gray
area that is statutory rape. I remember watching this movie from 2007 called Look in which a high
school teacher is seduced into sex by his underage student. Dont you think to ruin this mans life is a
little extreme? It was a one-time incident, and I doubt the girls life was harmed because of him, so why
should we punish him so harshly? Im not saying he should suffer no punishments at all, but rather it
shouldnt be equivocated with a real violent rapist. The same goes for 18 year olds having sex with 17
year olds and getting in trouble. Ohh, and the ridiculous shit I hear about sexting and pulling out your
dick to piss in public ridiculous.
Now, the alternative is to put the judge, the person, in complete, or at least more, control. Just
like Plato says that a single ruler is potentially the best solution it is also potentially the worst solution.
Men are inconsistent and judges with too much power could do too much damage, so this option isnt
even conceivable. So, we are left with the laws, but the problem is that this means that injustice is still
capable of slipping by, even when everyone sees it. They all see injustices happening and simply
acknowledge it without being able to correct it. It seems so silly to know the problem has occurred, and
know the solution, but not be able to implement it. However, I guess this can open up a can of worms
as they say, but it still feels like there is a solution potentially available to correct this. There must be.
And what about needs vs rights? It seems that the left thinks about what people need while the
right well, the libertarian right think about well rights. My final problem is going to overlap here,
which is wondering whether justice is sometimes going to contradict itself. You see, politically I am a
libertarian, or at least lean that way, thought I claim to be a leftist-libertarian, however, when it comes
to the free will debate, Im the opposite of a libertarian. Im a complete non-compatibilist determinist. I
dont think there is such a thing as starting-gate equality. So, the problem is what do we do when it
comes to the rights of people who can fend for themselves vs the needs of those who dont have it in
their nature to help themselves. Should we force those who have to give? Ideally, the government
wouldnt have to get involved, and people would help out the less fortunate on their own, but there is
no way charities can meet the same output as welfare is. I think the fault lies with God, for his failure to
sync together needs with rights. We should have a right to what we need. If we need food, then how
can you say we shouldnt have a right to it? However, this is what happens when God doesnt exist, and
order must arise out of chaos. Things sometimes just are not fair. It isnt immoral for a man to do
nothing while another man dies, and if it was, then all men everywhere would be guilty, and if we are all
guilty then none of us are really guilty. The immoral one is God. However, when a man takes away the
rights of another man, that is an immoral action. To live and let die seems to be morally superior to live
by way of stealing from your fellow man. Dont think I like this result, because I dont.
This impossibility of nature, this failure of God, to allow true justice can be seen more precisely
if you look at how nature treats its inhabitants. You may have seen a Disney movie where the
protagonist saves the bug in the spiders nest. The spider is labeled a monster, and we assume justice
has been met. The bug is free, and everyone is happy. Unfortunately, nature or God programmed the
spider in such a way that it must kill in order for it to survive. So, basically, if a carnivore kills that is an
injustice, but if it doesnt kill and it dies because of it, that is also an injustice. The same concept is
applied to humans in Vampire myths. Assuming the human was transformed outside of his will (to
display the most benevolent example) then why should we assume him as immoral for drinking the
blood of his fellow humans? He didnt ask for this curse. Should their lives be more important than his?
Neither is his life more important than theirs, so either option goes. Luckily, this isnt the case for man,
currently, though I am interested to see how the future handles the treatment of animals.
I was recently reading Bertrand Russell and he mentioned that at one point in history, it was
necessary for slaves to exist so that mathematicians and philosophers could have leisure time and
financial security. Is this historically necessary injustice? Even if this isnt a problem anymore, its still
disturbing to think that man once relied on injustice for his progress. However, Im not a white guilt
liberal, so I want harp too much on this.
Moral luck is another interesting thing to think about. Technically, since all of us are in the
hands of fate, how can justice be said to ever exist unless one believes in Karma? Ohh, Ive already
destroyed Karma in a former essay, so I shant repeat myself. But it is disturbing to think about how
Rupert Murdoch is still alive, and Anne Franke died at such a young age. It also doesnt seem fair that if
two drunk drivers slam into two different bushes, that one of them gets a harsher penalty because an
unvisible person was on the other side of one of them. The same actions. The same intentions.
Different outcomes. Is this justice? I could almost go back and apply that as anaphora to all my previous
statements.
So, to conclude, it seems like justice is an impossibility in this life. It is especially egregious for
the individual, because an individual only experiences one consciousness, and even if the probability of
suffering an injustice was greatly vitiated, this would almost make the experience of a single person who
did suffer that much worse via relative deprivation. That is why suicides are higher in places with higher
standards of living. They dont reap the benefits of maximizing justice. And can we justify taking money
from people? Maybe it is a utilitarian necessary. I dont think utilitarian is an ethical system though, I
think it is an alternative when morality cannot be upheld properly (by deontology). Maybe to hold
society together we need the injustice of redistribution just like history needed slavery and vampires
need necks and spiders need bugs. Its not fair, its not moral, its not just, but maybe its necessary.
Does necessity trump justice?
-Greg dratsab Huffman

(10/13/2014) The Problem of Prejudice
Some people, probably most, find prejudice to be a negative characteristic. Something that
should be discarded in an ideal world. Maybe in an ideal world it should, but in an imperfect world, not
only is it something we must deal with, but it is possibly something we should not ignore and cast away
as something to be surpassed. Why is prejudice bad? Because it puts an unjust interpretation onto
someone assuming that person to be no good, or dangerous. So, why should we not discard this
tool?
Well, in most cases prejudice seems to come up in regards to dealing with racial issues. Possibly
Muslims now, due to airport screenings. But to avoid sensitive race issues just yet, lets put it in a
different form. Could you be friends with an ex-convict? Well, some of you may be saying to yourselves
that you could, and that they are great people. This is because you no longer need prejudice you have
knowledge about this person. Now, imagine you are introduced to someone that you know to be an ex-
convict. Are you not going to be wary? Wariness it is a compromise. It is an injustice, but possibly a
necessary one. Wariness is a person saying they will give you a chance, but not a very confident one. If
you knew a convict to be untrustable, then you would not be wary, you would simply avoid them. You
would not give them the time of day to be near you and put you in a wary state. However, a convict
that is a good person, you will also be wary of, because you dont know if they will be trustable or not.
Wariness shows prudent tolerance.
Imagine you are walking down the street, and you are all alone a lull in traffic, dim or disabled
street lights and you see a fellow approaching you. He is a black fellow, wearing the clothes of a
pauper, specifically gangster rap culture attire, and with a scowl on his face, no doubt he has been
instilled by his community with a sense of everyone being out to get him. Do you discard, with white
guilt, prejudice and keep walking past him maybe give him a smile and wave while youre at it, after
all, every angry person can benefit from a hug and kindness or do you cross to the other side of the
street and keep to yourself, you virulent racist? In passing by your fellow man, you risk being assaulted,
but all for a good cause, naturally! Is it worth it in the name of racial sensitivity? Lets hope the only
insensitivity you possess is a tolerance for pain and puncture wounds, in case this pal of yours
brandishes a knife.
No, its not just that the fellow was black. A black man in a business suit passing calmly by
would arouse no suspicion, even if probability be damned this late night business man decided he
had had enough of the corporate world holding him down and assaults you with a knife, comically. Nor
does it matter that he is in a state of penury, for a poor person can still carry himself with some decency,
and if not putting a plastered smile on, can at least pass nonchalantly. It is not an injustice to be afraid
of this fellow. No, it is not something to be guilty of, to want to preserve your life when the unknown
approaches. It would be an injustice to stand your ground without the facts, but not merely to
abandon your ground and walk on the other side of the street. You dont know what to expect. Will this
person take it as an insult? Possibly, but this person could also kill you. The trade-off? Insult to them or
death for you. It isnt fair, because true fairness requires the facts.
This is another problem with life, having to act with limited facts. Someone is going to be
treated unjustly. Someone is getting screwed. Whose word shall we accept? Should we accost little old
ladies and celebrities at the airport just to make the innocent Islamists feel a sense of fairness? Or
should we save time, money, and lives by only profiling those that have proven the most likely to strap a
bomb to their chest? Admittedly, it may not be fair to the Muslim, but I shant say its a major injustice.
It isnt disbarring them from flying, which would be an injustice. We dont know the facts, and we dont
have infinite time and resources. The best course, for someone who was omnipotent, would be to gaze
into the souls of everyone, and not merely focus on those that are most likely. However, since we are
imperfect, we have to deal in trade-offs. You should get to know someone if you have the time to spend
with that person. When you get to know someone, prejudice slides away as a tool that is no longer
needed. But the time to put the blinders on prejudiced vision is not while encountering a suspicious
fellow in a dangerous scenario. So, racism accusations? Better than death. Islamophobia? What does
that mean? Fear of Islam? Yes, that sounds like an accurate description to me.