The concept "Justice" defined and analyzed

[prof]

What is justice? I will offer my analysis here, and then I want to know what you think about it.

Perhaps most Forum members can agree with me that justice is relevant to ethics, that the two concepts are closely related, that “morality without justice is blind, ” to paraphrase what Kant said on another topic. First we must present some preliminaries so as to better grasp the analysis of “justice.”

{In the following analysis I shall employ some tools first suggested by the philosopher Robert S. Hartman, a true, creative, genius. I refer to his “Dimensions of Value”.} They are in turn, specifically,the fulfillment of, respectively, a synthetic concept, an analytic concept, and a singular concept. (I use these terms in the sense which Kant used them in his book,Logik. There he was speaking of concepts rather than propositions.} You can find out more details about the value dimensions by clicking on the links available in my earlier posts. {Especially see the four essays that comprise A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS.} They are safe to open, and nothing is for sale: they are price-less.

Hartman has written at some length (– so I shall condense it here. He explained that incongruence or incoherence results in what he has named Transposition of Value – which is a disvalue. The fulfillment of a synthetic concept is called: Systemic Value. The fulfillment of an analytic concept is: Extrinsic Value. And the fulfillment of a singular concept is to be known as: Intrinsic Value.}

[The following is a quote from one of my essays, describing Hartman’s Formal Axiology (value logic) as it applies to Ethics:
“A good hammer has everything a hammer is supposed to have, in your picture of a hammer. A good person likewise has a full set of features and characteristics that a person would ideally have - such as empathy, kindness, authenticity, compassion. To call something “good” is to say it has full value, and that it completely fulfills the meaning of its concept.
According to Value Science there are three types of basic values. They are Systemic Value, Extrinsic Value, and Intrinsic Value. Abbreviated these are S, E, and I. And the Value Psychologist, Dr. Leon Pomeroy, tells us that it is as important to know our SEIs as it is to know our ABCs.

Here are some examples:
Thoughts are S-values; things are E-values; persons and involvements are I-values. They result when the basic value dimensions are applied.
People usually S-Value theories, systems, ideologies, blueprints, plans, zip codes, circuit diagrams, technical language, black-and-white thinking, scientific models, and all the “isms.” They are appropriately valued Systemically.
E-Value is the valuation people usually place upon things of this world, practicalities, empirical matters, know-how, savoir-faire, social, everyday concerns, functionality, diplomacy, worldly considerations, categories, etc.
You are likely to I-Value your mother, your spouse, your dearest ones, unique persons you love, beloved treasures, masterpieces of art, priceless items, etc. We value those Intrinsically whenever we identify with and bond with them.
Value scientists speak of those three values as “dimensions of value.” We need them all. The three value dimensions form a hierarchy with S-value worth the least; E-value worth infinitely more; and I-value the most precious of all – worth far, far more than any E-value. The correct hierarchy of values, in symbols, is S < E < I. And thus to place S above I; or to give more weight to E than to I would be a fallacy.
The highest of the three basic values is Intrinsic Value, or In-value.” The discipline of “Ethics” arises when persons are Intrinsically valued, according to value scientists [i.e., Formal Axiologists.]. all of this is explained clearly in detail in the transcript of an informal talk given by Hartman: “The Measurement of Value.” ]

Now that the preliminaries are out of the way, my contention here is that Formal Axiology - which serves us well as the meta-language for Ethics - has something to say about the concept "Justice" that may be helpful. What do you think: does the applications of the tools of this new science of values, when applied to this concept elucidate the subject?

I shall define JUSTICE as meaning: "the restoration and maintenance of a balance."

There are at least four modes of justice, on a continuum from worst to best; this analysis says that justice is a matter of degree rather than just "black or white."

These dimensions are: Transposed Justice (fragmented value), which is Retribution or Retaliation, an "eye for an eye," which eventually "renders everybody blind......."

Next, there is -- when the Systemic Value dimension is applied to "justice" -- Equality or Equal treatment under law. "Every one is entitled to his day in court," "All are equal in the eyes of the law." [And Law itself can be analyzed by the axiological dimensions into Statute Law, Common Law, and Moral Law, each one worth more than the last.]

And then there is Compensation or Equity: one doesn't trade an apple for an automobile, quid quo pro, a judge taking into consideration the circumstances of the perpetrator's life, etc. This is the result of Extrinsic Value being applied to "justice."

When Intrinsic Value is applied, we get: Rehabilitation or Reconciliation. An illustration of this form of justice may be what was the practice in some African tribe when a murderer's dispensation was that he had to enter into the extended family of his victim, and assume all the responsibilities of the one he is replacing, and in this way he paid his debt to the community. Recently, in the Western World we find that the practice of "creative sentencing" on the part of some jurists often contributes to rehabilitation of offenders.

{The notion of Justice results in law, in social contracts. There are three major types of law.

(S)Juridical; written codes; legislation

(E) Common Law

( I ) The Moral Law ; also conclusions of Ethical Science.

Each outweighs the former in value.}

This is the formal axiological analysis of Justice, and perhaps it sheds some light on the topic. I believe it does. I’d like to know if you can improve upon, or enhance, this definition and analysis of the concept “Justice.”
I recognize, of course, that there is more to be said on the topic of justice.

Let's examine its opposite for a moment. An injustice is a mismatch
(between someone's happiness and what we take to be
their merit). For example, a crook must not live high
while his victim suffers. In every injustice something is
out of balance.

Justice requires giving others their due.
Reparation is a name for the obligation we have to
compensate others for past wrongs or for a previous
wrongful act. The highest form of justice is
reconciliation or rehabilitation. [Vengeance is the lowest
form.]

To sum it all up, someone who cares, who has self-respect and enough sense to respect others, would
focus upon the facilitating institutions and social
arrangements so that human beings are not placed in
situations where they will act badly.


Ethics is about adding value, about maximizing the value for all concerned, which eventually is everyone in the world. Hence, it is about making the world work for every individual, via superior design, and new technologies, both social and physical, empowering people from the bottom up, optimizing opportunity for creativity, depriving no one of a life of high quality and sustainability.

Social Ethics is about an Opportunity Society, and it argues for the case that there are no rights nor entitlements without accompanying responsibilities.

[ForgedinHell]

What is justice? I will offer my analysis here, and then I want to know what you think about it.

Perhaps most Forum members can agree with me that justice is relevant to ethics, that the two concepts are closely related, that “morality without justice is blind, ” to paraphrase what Kant said on another topic. First we must present some preliminaries so as to better grasp the analysis of “justice.”

{In the following analysis I shall employ some tools first suggested by the philosopher Robert S. Hartman, a true, creative, genius. I refer to his “Dimensions of Value”.} They are in turn, specifically,the fulfillment of, respectively, a synthetic concept, an analytic concept, and a singular concept. (I use these terms in the sense which Kant used them in his book,Logik. There he was speaking of concepts rather than propositions.} You can find out more details about the value dimensions by clicking on the links available in my earlier posts. {Especially see the four essays that comprise A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS.} They are safe to open, and nothing is for sale: they are price-less.

Hartman has written at some length (– so I shall condense it here. He explained that incongruence or incoherence results in what he has named Transposition of Value – which is a disvalue. The fulfillment of a synthetic concept is called: Systemic Value. The fulfillment of an analytic concept is: Extrinsic Value. And the fulfillment of a singular concept is to be known as: Intrinsic Value.}

[The following is a quote from one of my essays, describing Hartman’s Formal Axiology (value logic) as it applies to Ethics:
“A good hammer has everything a hammer is supposed to have, in your picture of a hammer. A good person likewise has a full set of features and characteristics that a person would ideally have - such as empathy, kindness, authenticity, compassion. To call something “good” is to say it has full value, and that it completely fulfills the meaning of its concept.
According to Value Science there are three types of basic values. They are Systemic Value, Extrinsic Value, and Intrinsic Value. Abbreviated these are S, E, and I. And the Value Psychologist, Dr. Leon Pomeroy, tells us that it is as important to know our SEIs as it is to know our ABCs.

Here are some examples:
Thoughts are S-values; things are E-values; persons and involvements are I-values. They result when the basic value dimensions are applied.
People usually S-Value theories, systems, ideologies, blueprints, plans, zip codes, circuit diagrams, technical language, black-and-white thinking, scientific models, and all the “isms.” They are appropriately valued Systemically.
E-Value is the valuation people usually place upon things of this world, practicalities, empirical matters, know-how, savoir-faire, social, everyday concerns, functionality, diplomacy, worldly considerations, categories, etc.
You are likely to I-Value your mother, your spouse, your dearest ones, unique persons you love, beloved treasures, masterpieces of art, priceless items, etc. We value those Intrinsically whenever we identify with and bond with them.
Value scientists speak of those three values as “dimensions of value.” We need them all. The three value dimensions form a hierarchy with S-value worth the least; E-value worth infinitely more; and I-value the most precious of all – worth far, far more than any E-value. The correct hierarchy of values, in symbols, is S < E < I. And thus to place S above I; or to give more weight to E than to I would be a fallacy.
The highest of the three basic values is Intrinsic Value, or In-value.” The discipline of “Ethics” arises when persons are Intrinsically valued, according to value scientists [i.e., Formal Axiologists.]. all of this is explained clearly in detail in the transcript of an informal talk given by Hartman: “The Measurement of Value.” ]

Now that the preliminaries are out of the way, my contention here is that Formal Axiology - which serves us well as the meta-language for Ethics - has something to say about the concept "Justice" that may be helpful. What do you think: does the applications of the tools of this new science of values, when applied to this concept elucidate the subject?

I shall define JUSTICE as meaning: "the restoration and maintenance of a balance."

There are at least four modes of justice, on a continuum from worst to best; this analysis says that justice is a matter of degree rather than just "black or white."

These dimensions are: Transposed Justice (fragmented value), which is Retribution or Retaliation, an "eye for an eye," which eventually "renders everybody blind......."

Next, there is -- when the Systemic Value dimension is applied to "justice" -- Equality or Equal treatment under law. "Every one is entitled to his day in court," "All are equal in the eyes of the law." [And Law itself can be analyzed by the axiological dimensions into Statute Law, Common Law, and Moral Law, each one worth more than the last.]

And then there is Compensation or Equity: one doesn't trade an apple for an automobile, quid quo pro, a judge taking into consideration the circumstances of the perpetrator's life, etc. This is the result of Extrinsic Value being applied to "justice."

When Intrinsic Value is applied, we get: Rehabilitation or Reconciliation. An illustration of this form of justice may be what was the practice in some African tribe when a murderer's dispensation was that he had to enter into the extended family of his victim, and assume all the responsibilities of the one he is replacing, and in this way he paid his debt to the community. Recently, in the Western World we find that the practice of "creative sentencing" on the part of some jurists often contributes to rehabilitation of offenders.

{The notion of Justice results in law, in social contracts. There are three major types of law.

(S)Juridical; written codes; legislation

(E) Common Law

( I ) The Moral Law ; also conclusions of Ethical Science.

Each outweighs the former in value.}

This is the formal axiological analysis of Justice, and perhaps it sheds some light on the topic. I believe it does. I’d like to know if you can improve upon, or enhance, this definition and analysis of the concept “Justice.”
I recognize, of course, that there is more to be said on the topic of justice.

Let's examine its opposite for a moment. An injustice is a mismatch
(between someone's happiness and what we take to be
their merit). For example, a crook must not live high
while his victim suffers. In every injustice something is
out of balance.

Justice requires giving others their due.
Reparation is a name for the obligation we have to
compensate others for past wrongs or for a previous
wrongful act. The highest form of justice is
reconciliation or rehabilitation. [Vengeance is the lowest
form.]

To sum it all up, someone who cares, who has self-respect and enough sense to respect others, would
focus upon the facilitating institutions and social
arrangements so that human beings are not placed in
situations where they will act badly.


Ethics is about adding value, about maximizing the value for all concerned, which eventually is everyone in the world. Hence, it is about making the world work for every individual, via superior design, and new technologies, both social and physical, empowering people from the bottom up, optimizing opportunity for creativity, depriving no one of a life of high quality and sustainability.

Social Ethics is about an Opportunity Society, and it argues for the case that there are no rights nor entitlements without accompanying responsibilities.

I know you mean well, but I have the feeling you are over thinking things. Justice is more of a feeling than anything. When it comes to issues like justice, one has to trust one's feelings. If justice were merely a matter of some cold-logic, then why do virtually all US Supreme Court decisions come down to 5-4 rulings, usually along ideological lines? It's because the Justices each feels what is right, then they try to rationalize what they feel is right with some long-winded argument, that usually impresses no one but law students.

[Impenitent]

justice is scotch on the rocks, hold the scotch

-Imp

[prof]

... The highest form of justice is
reconciliation or rehabilitation. [Vengeance is the lowest
form.]

To sum it all up, someone who cares, who has self-respect and enough sense to respect others, would
focus upon the facilitating institutions and social arrangements so that human beings are not placed in
situations where they will act badly.


Ethics is about adding value, about maximizing the value for all concerned, which eventually is everyone in the world. Hence, it is about making the world work for every individual, via superior design, and new technologies, both social and physical, empowering people from the bottom up, optimizing opportunity for creativity, depriving no one of a life of high quality and sustainability.

Social Ethics is about an Opportunity Society, and it argues for the case that there are no rights nor entitlements without accompanying responsibilities.

... When it comes to issues like justice, one has to trust one's feelings. If justice were merely a matter of some cold-logic, then why do virtually all US Supreme Court decisions come down to 5-4 rulings, usually along ideological lines? ...

Yes, I am thinking; isn't that what philosophers are supposed to do? As a kid, born in early October, I cared about justice long before I knew how to think logically or systematically, and before I knew what philosophy is, and knew it's place in the grand scheme of things in the universe. Yet I am not one of those who over-value systems at the expense of people's feelings (including my own.) I score rather high in empathy on the HVP test. But you're right: I do love systems. At the same time I do trust my feelings. But this is not about me. It's about justice, and how to achieve it.

Isn't it possible that each ideology has a logic to it? At least those ideologies held by the Justices on the Supreme Court have a certain implicit logic.

The Conservatives - not just the five on the Court, but in general - want to keep things as they are now ("while I am comfortable. Why change anything? I'm doing quite fine!") They believe they are superior to others. They can't identify with the impoverished. And they don't really care about anyone less fortunate - with the possible exception of Charles Murray and his following. They may have been influenced by what Thomas Hobbes wrote in The Leviathan, that life is "brutish and short" and that men are born evil. Many of them implicitly believe this. Thus they hold that "we have to watch out for these manipulators." :We need strong defenses for our own safety." "We mustn't let anyone take our wealth away from us." ...or the wealth we hope to possess some day. Most of the selfish, well-off people end up holding this ideology.

Liberals, Progressives, and Populists, in contrast, believe that babies are born good; that "I am no better, nor worse, than the next guy", that every individual's life is precious. They are likely to oppose capital punishment in the majority of cases; also war; also exploitation. Most warm, open-hearted people end up with these leanings.

Libertarians were greatly influenced by John Locke. They believe in the right to life, liberty, and property. They still believe in the delusion that "free enterprise" is free ...when it has long since ceased to be so.

So there is a certain 'logic' behind each position. They may not be conscious of it, but it's there.

[ForgedinHell]

... The highest form of justice is
reconciliation or rehabilitation. [Vengeance is the lowest
form.]

To sum it all up, someone who cares, who has self-respect and enough sense to respect others, would
focus upon the facilitating institutions and social arrangements so that human beings are not placed in
situations where they will act badly.


Ethics is about adding value, about maximizing the value for all concerned, which eventually is everyone in the world. Hence, it is about making the world work for every individual, via superior design, and new technologies, both social and physical, empowering people from the bottom up, optimizing opportunity for creativity, depriving no one of a life of high quality and sustainability.

Social Ethics is about an Opportunity Society, and it argues for the case that there are no rights nor entitlements without accompanying responsibilities.

... When it comes to issues like justice, one has to trust one's feelings. If justice were merely a matter of some cold-logic, then why do virtually all US Supreme Court decisions come down to 5-4 rulings, usually along ideological lines? ...

Yes, I am thinking; isn't that what philosophers are supposed to do? As a kid, born in early October, I cared about justice long before I knew how to think logically or systematically, and before I knew what philosophy is, and knew it's place in the grand scheme of things in the universe. Yet I am not one of those who over-value systems at the expense of people's feelings (including my own.) I score rather high in empathy on the HVP test. But you're right: I do love systems. At the same time I do trust my feelings. But this is not about me. It's about justice, and how to achieve it.

Isn't it possible that each ideology has a logic to it? At least those ideologies held by the Justices on the Supreme Court have a certain implicit logic.

What does that have to do with it? The symbol of justice in America is a blindfolded lady holding up the scales of justice. Justice is supposed to be blind. Justice is supposed to protect everyone, regardless of who they are. The laws in the US exist, and if the justices actually used logic, then, since they are all supposedly so smart, and all are confined to the same set of laws to solve the issue before them, if logic were deciding the issues, we would expect a lot of 9-0 or 8-1 decisions, with the occasional 7-2 for especially tricky issues. But we would not expect 5-4 decisions as the norm, which is basically what we are getting now. The Justices use their feelings, their personal prejudices, and then they look for some support in the law to justify their gut feelings.

The Conservatives - not just the five on the Court, but in general - want to keep things as they are now ("while I am comfortable. Why change anything? I'm doing quite fine!") They believe they are superior to others. They can't identify with the impoverished. And they don't really care about anyone less fortunate - with the possible exception of Charles Murray and his following. They may have been influenced by what Thomas Hobbes wrote in The Leviathan, that life is "brutish and short" and that men are born evil. Many of them implicitly believe this. Thus they hold that "we have to watch out for these manipulators." :We need strong defenses for our own safety." "We mustn't let anyone take our wealth away from us." ...or the wealth we hope to possess some day. Most of the selfish, well-off people end up holding this ideology.

Liberals, Progressives, and Populists, in contrast, believe that babies are born good; that "I am no better, nor worse, than the next guy", that every individual's life is precious. They are likely to oppose capital punishment in the majority of cases; also war; also exploitation. Most warm, open-hearted people end up with these leanings.

Libertarians were greatly influenced by John Locke. They believe in the right to life, liberty, and property. They still believe in the delusion that "free enterprise" is free ...when it has long since ceased to be so.

Libertarians are the ones pointing out that we don't have free markets. Locke was not into freedom. What ever gave you that idea? He did not believe in freedom of speech for instance, he thought atheists did not deserve to have their say.

So there is a certain 'logic' behind each position. They may not be conscious of it, but it's there.

[MJA]

A judge once told me: Justice is whatever the court decides.

And I see it simply this Way:

=