In the second installment of our intermittent series on the conceptual faults of our great language, we're going after a big one. Today we expose the lie that is: Justice.
Now, what are we talking about, exactly? What is justice supposed to be that isn't true? Lets say that justice is built on the idea that there is a way that reality should inherently be. Justice is the idea that deviations from this supposed state can and should be corrected by human action.
I myself find this concept extremely attractive, but the appeal of an idea has nothing to do with its truth. There is no reason to think that the universe has a way it should be in regards to us humans, or that it's a universal rule that it's on us to set the world right.
Of course, justice really has a very narrow scope. There's no one claiming that we should bring an infection or a hurricane to justice. No, justice is only applied to humans, or at least human-relatable intelligences. I'm sure some people have considered applying the concept to dolphins.
So, adopting a very anthropocentric paradigm, which is of course instinctual for humans, if we think there is a way things should be, we find ourselves deeply disturbed by deviations from the expected state. And there is often reason to be disturbed. Very few people would think on their own to call for justice against a semi-comfortable status quo. Justice is for unpleasant change. It's for things like theft and murder, and here we see the introduction of scales to be balanced; a return to homeostasis.
The early codes mandate things like paying for what you stole or a life for a life. Perhaps this is somewhat acceptable for theft, although how one would accurately put a price on the trouble of reclaiming an item is problematic. The real problem with justice comes with the truth that one life is never equal to another. Only in the most dehumanizing commoditization of human life could one think otherwise.
Now, all this isn't to say that we shouldn't try to change the world to match our ideals. I don't think we could do that even if we tried; ideals are so much a part of ourselves. It's just to say that when we look at our ideals, especially in regards to things like retribution, that we need to own them. We can't claim that something outside ourselves demands it.
If you see scales needing to be balanced, you need to know that those are your scales. Yours and no one else's, especially not the underlying nature of reality. The realization in the moment might be quite humbling. Reality does not care about your sense of what is right and fair. If it did then there would be no concept of right or fair because there would only be what is.
Now, you might not have guessed this, but I'm a pretty big fan of functional analysis. How does a thing work and how can I use it to get what I want, these are what I want to know first and foremost. One of the nice things about this way of thinking is that it is very forward-looking. We look at the past only to learn what to expect in the future.
This makes it fairly easy for me to not concern myself with the balancing of scales. One cannot unmake a mistake or uncommit a crime, and so I don't care about apologies. I only care about preventing future issues. Justice isn't particularly involved here. In fact, using the common understanding, it would be entirely unjust to remove a person-shaped problem before they do something wrong. Justice is only concerned with measuring out the correct level of retribution.
There is no correct level. There are no scales to be balanced, and a wrong once committed cannot be righted. If someone tells you otherwise they're trying to control you, so weigh their advice carefully. Countries are built on the concept of justice, and leaders are selected based on how just they can make themselves appear. Don't buy it, none of it is real. Remember, burn your flags and kill your heroes.
