An Eye for an Eye

Ever since my senior English class in high school, where I had an anarcho-capitalist as a teacher, I have pondered the meaning of almost everything existing in the world. A huge topic that really does bewilder me is justice. Justice in itself seems so simple, but try to think about justice without punishment. Is it possible? I believe it is. I search books and quotes of individuals to try and pry at their minds in order to establish my own definition of justice. I suggest you do the same.

I have trouble understanding how justice has transformed from a system of repercussionary justice and Hammurabi’s Code to system of harmony and mutual agreements to institutional law. Jeff Melvoin said, “The law is not so much carved in stone as it is written in water, flowing in and out with the tide.” Why is that? Does justice and how people should treat each other in society change with time? It might; I am just unsure of how it can. I think the basis of justice starts with prevention. You must prevent you as a person from harming other individuals and avert any harm coming towards yourself. Your actions will help create a solid form of justice. This type of anticipation can overly cause justice to influence others and become a movement; this idea does not involve punishment.

Who should control justice? Should it be left in the hands of the people or should society as a whole determine what is right and what is wrong? In the past, both have occurred, and both have functioned well. I believe it should be both, there are certain societal understandings that a person learns not to do as a child and throughout their life. Society is there to make sure these laws stay intact through education and learning, but ultimately justice relies on you making the decision between right and wrong. This choice is yours based upon your values, as we discussed, and what you believe in.

Continuing with your beliefs, some understand that religion sets laws and identifies the policies of justice in society. This I believe is on an individual basis wherein your religion teaches you certain policies that your faith tells you to trust in. I do not think this is a fallacy (we’ll discuss faith and reason at a later moment). I contemplate whether or not it should be my decision where a person learns there morals and values from, and that’s not on me to judge. Where ever a person realizes there values from is their decision; their life experiences are different then mine, so we are going to have different learning environments to gain knowledge from.

Finally, I do agree with the thought that justice is a concept of the fair and moral treatment of others, but “others” I mean everyone, in my opinion. I do not agree with treating any individual unfairly (as determined by society) in any situation. I am not going to judge why I should treat someone morally different than I would a family member of mine, that is not my decision to make. My decision is to administer fair and seemingly unbiased behavior towards any human, animal, government, or society. What gives me the power to persecute someone for their actions? Remember, a very important talent in life is to look within before you judge outwards. This idea of negatively treating someone, who might have committed a crime or persecuted you, is not justice, but maltreatment of a common individual like yourself. I guess I would say I believe justice is made by the people, whether this form of justice created is correct or not; it is up to society to rectify their decisions and be conscious of what effect they are having on the future. Justice should not go in and out with the tide, but stay on a course of improvement and towards its goal of perfection.