++> From Dennis Menard to David Martorana concerning JUSTICE
 ++> (Real people ethics)
 
 To paraphrase your main theme on our last exchange-
 
 DMe> Why do we ever harp on JUSTICE if our underlying attitude
 DMe> is one of expediency? What constitutes JUSTICE?
 
      As you said "fairness.............."
 
  There is "much mud" in the management of our species, resulting
  in many tensions,  some seen of crocodilian skin and angelic wings
  ....at war (sons of darkness and daughters of light ). With such
  a housing of mismatched decision gears, we are pressured to cruise
  along in a midgear. Our liberal* wings wanting justice, our
  conservative* skin remaining primal ....a reaching up and a reaching
  down. Within our confusions of extremes we do our best (doublespeak/
  doublethink). Nature calls us through her/our genes to follow power
  and survival ....physical or intellectual, depending on ???.
  Justice nudges about somewhere on our wish list, sometimes actually
  coming out into an afternoon sun.
      * ...dictionary definitions 
 
 DMe> ....as this is the "philosophy" echo, I rather thought it
 DMe> might be appropriate to draw such distinctions here and really
 DMe> seek a "more singlespeaking and singlethinking" view of "justice."
 DMe> In my opinion, I suspect that "justice" is (or should be) somewhat
 DMe> removed from desire, even if that desire reflects the general
 DMe> attitude of the public (ie, the general desire of a local public
 DMe> can/has resulted in lynchings).
 
      Justice is ""SOMEWHAT"" removed from desire being a matter of
      how much removed. It cannot be fully separated from desire without
      separating it from man ....and that moves its more into religion
      than reality. We have laws and we work them as best can
      be. On a world scale, probably in the top ten. I """personally"""
      believe English genes are predisposed toward justice but with
      an Italian background, am most willing to keep that quiet 
 
 DM>> rhetoric, just wants the problems to "go way". If they don't
 DM>> go away, those perceived to be the source grow to become a
 DM>> population wide acceptable target.
 
 DMe> This is what we call "justice" or is this what we call
 DMe> "expediency"?  If we're going to filter "justice" through
 DMe> expedience, practicality and economics, do you not feel it
 DMe> would be more appropriate to use those terms directly - and
 DMe> seek to justify "their" use - rather than, pervert the
 DMe> meaning of "justice"? You know, "justice" (ie, what's fair
 DMe> and right and equable, etc.)?
 
  Justice is subject to "fuzzy" expediency ...yes! No! Justice
  is one of those magic candles that flickers us forward even if
  an inch at a time. To curse the progress and cast away the candle
  would seem to me .......sad. That I can recognize and approve of
  expediency does not trash my feelings for more light. I use the word
  "feelings" because I am unable to frame any expression that our
  species and its progress is of any real importance in any serious
  scheme of the grand *whatever*.
  We do not pervert the term ....... we explore it forward. You are
  a bit judgement harsh .....we haven't been wearing pants that long.
 
 DMe> so, why are we afraid to say "to hell with justice," give
 DMe> us expediency and practical results and an affordable bottom
 DMe> line?
 
   We already do (quietly). As suggested above, with one foot on
   the anthill ......we seem to also have the other on a mountain.
   .....an interesting dilemma as to whether both feet will come
   together and where?
 
 DMe> Would the public object?  If they would, why would they?
 DMe> If they wouldn't, where's the problem?
 
   I believe the answer is bigger than just saying "the public"!
   this ? or that ?. If you and I cannot resolve justice between
   us, we in evey sense "become that public".....yes?
 
 DMe> I hate to keep harping on this, David; can we consider
 DMe> that "public  satisfaction" is an appropriate measure of
 DMe> "justice"?  Public satisfaction might demand public lynchings,
 DMe> or, a firing squad in the town square; will we call this "justice"?
 
    Yes! ....sometimes it is called justice and sometimes it
    actually is justice. You see justice as a beautiful blind
    virgin standing on a cold mountain (incorruptible rightness).
    Others see justice as a local gal, a bit well worn, again
    (incorruptible rightness). They don't look the same, they
    don't talk the same but they often are the same.
 
 DMe> Now that we know what our primary "real" concerns are,
 DMe> David, surely we can dispense with such notions as "equality
 DMe> under the law."  Now, being honest, we can say, "Societal
 DMe> forgiveness can be bought; you can't pay, you swing." This
 DMe> greatly simplifies such thorny issues as innocence vs guilt,
 DMe> no?  :)
 
 DMe> "Let's ally ourselves against the "haves!"
 
   Sorry, I am one!
 
 DMe> I suggest that disparity promotes greed,
 
   As said before, I believe greed is the primal engine of
   being and progress, "probably" "mostly" genetically based. As
   with any of our instincto-conscious tensions, it can have
   polarized elements and often produces hard-to-shield-from sparks,
   but never-the-less, in its several shades,  is the vital force
   of connective life (holds the mankind-organism together)..
 
 DMe> by both sides (ie, desire of the "haves" to distance themselves
 DMe> from the level of the "have-nots," while the "have-nots" desire
 DMe> to approach the level of the "haves."  And, by providing
 DMe> inequable opportunities, those "have-nots" seem almost
 DMe> biblical, thus ...
 
 DMe> For they have sown the wind (disparity) and they shall reap
 DMe> the whirlwind: it hath no stalk; the bud shall yield no meal
 DMe> (discontent, despair and the products thereof  disruption and decay, etc.>): ...
 
 DMe> Now, who has done the sowing?  And who is doing the reaping?
 DMe> None of the conditions I've mentioned happen by accident or
 DMe> "just because," David.  :(
 DMe> Increase the disparity (ie, sow more wind) and what will happen?
 
  Got lost in the sowing fields and winds of have and have notniks 
 
 DMe> Ah!  Necessity is said to provide innovation.  IF, of
 DMe> course, no necessity is seen ... then the solutions one employs
 DMe> will be of DMe> the simplistic, non-innovative, typical sort (ie,
 DMe> ineffective?).  But, you know, necessity has a way of manifesting
 DMe> itself over and over and over -  until someone stops long enough
 DMe> to listen.
 
   We would wait for your "someone" to stop and listen ......but even
   assuming he (us) can "do his idea", we might not like his innovative
   solutions!
 
 DMe> Yes.  A good recipe is hard to come by.  If "justice" is not what
 DMe> we want, David, then let us not pretend that "our" society's any
 DMe> more concerned with issues of human rights than any other nation
 DMe> ruled by a tinpot dictator.
 
 .....concerns are mixed and solutions most debatable but
 "inching" forward I think......
 
  I am often drawn to the Egyptian scene where the heart is weighed
  against a feather .....and am awed, the painting being over 5000
  years in our past. Some few many years and two houses back,  I
  reproduced the picture, floor to ceiling across my dining room wall.
  The kids would always ask about the crocodile man among the gods
  of judgement, he standing next to the scale. Many times I had to
  explain that he swallowed the judged man if his heart was heavier
  than the feather.  Often at dinner I could see the kids exploring
  the almost alien scene......as also did I......we are the public!
 
                          oo ... Dave
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------