What is Justice

[Ifat Glassman 0]

Peikoff on Justice:

"Justice" is the virtue of judging men's character and conduct objectively and of acting accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves.

Is there a distinction between the concepts "justice" and "the virtue of justice"? If so, what is it?

My concept of justice, to put simply, is that a person gets what they deserve. What determines what he deserves? facts of reality.

On the other hand, the definition defines justice (or is it the virtue of justice?) solely in the context of some specific individual's mind.

Can it be said that while it is unjust for an innocent man to serve time in prison, that the judge who put him there, while judging the facts available to him objectively, possessed the virtue of justice?

[Paul's Here 0]

Peikoff on Justice:

"Justice" is the virtue of judging men's character and conduct objectively and of acting accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves.

Is there a distinction between the concepts "justice" and "the virtue of justice"? If so, what is it?

My concept of justice, to put simply, is that a person gets what they deserve. What determines what he deserves? facts of reality.

On the other hand, the definition defines justice (or is it the virtue of justice?) solely in the context of some specific individual's mind.

Can it be said that while it is unjust for an innocent man to serve time in prison, that the judge who put him there, while judging the facts available to him objectively, possessed the virtue of justice?

Since you didn't address what I stated in the thread on integrity, I'll repeat what I stated there.

One of the problems with this type of hypothetical argument is that the person who posits the argument can always assume a context of knowledge that is broader than the context of knowledge of the individuals in the example. There is no god in real life. If a judge, or jury, has taken into account all of the available evidence and if he issues a judgment that is warranted by the evidence, then he is just. One cannot expect anyone to act outside of his available knowledge. Justice requires rational identification of the facts and appropriate treatment of individuals. Justice requires neither omniscience nor infallibility.

So I would disagree with you. Since the virtue of justice is a subdivision of rationality, one cannot be unjust and rational.

To turn the question on you, how do you know the person is innocent and why didn't the judge take those facts into account?

The only distinction I would make between "justice" and the "virtue of justice" is to recognize that there are philosophies that do not regard the concept as a virtue but as a vice. Specifically, egalitarianism comes to mind.

[JRoberts 0]

Justice is a tricky word because so many concepts have been bundled into it. Thus, it is necessary to define the virtue by a standard, objective definition.

What makes justice even more difficult is that justice can not exist without a relationship between individuals. Dr. Peikoff provides an excellent definition which solves this problem.

Is there a distinction between the concepts "justice" and "the virtue of justice"? If so, what is it?

Objectively speaking, no. Justice is a virtue. But the word justice is used in many situations, as I said earlier, and thus if you take another example of justice used colloquially, then there "would" be a distinction. I think what you are asking might be a larger question: is there a difference between a concept of a virtue and the virtue itself? Is there a difference between courage and the virtue of courage or honesty and the virtue of honesty? Once again, the answer is no. Virtues are not Forms.

My concept of justice, to put simply, is that a person gets what they deserve. What determines what he deserves? facts of reality.

On the other hand, the definition defines justice (or is it the virtue of justice?) solely in the context of some specific individual's mind.

I don't see how these two differ. Dr. Peikoff says that, to be just, an individual must objectively evaluate an individuals character and then to act accordingly. There can not be justice outside of our creation of it (or more specifically, out of our acting in accordance with our nature). Justice is not a Form to be deduced. Would you please make your distinction more clear?

Can it be said that while it is unjust for an innocent man to serve time in prison, that the judge who put him there, while judging the facts available to him objectively, possessed the virtue of justice?

If the judge honestly/objectively surveyed and examined every fact available for the case and acted according to the facts, it would be very rare for an innocent man by a just judge to spend time in prison. If this mistake happens (as it has happened before), while tragic, the judge did nothing wrong.

[Oleksandr 0]

My concept of justice, to put simply, is that a person gets what they deserve. What determines what he deserves? facts of reality.

Here's a question to clarify something. You said "that a person gets what they deserve," but who is giving this?

Do you mean that justice is when it turns out that the liar doesn't gain anything even though nobody noticed his lie?

(If this is so, wouldn't reality always "give" them what they deserve?)

Or do you mean that other people who know he lied (to continue my example) give him only what he deserves?

I think this context must be cleared before moving forward with the topic.

[bborg 0]

One of the problems with this type of hypothetical argument is that the person who posits the argument can always assume a context of knowledge that is broader than the context of knowledge of the individuals in the example. There is no god in real life. If a judge, or jury, has taken into account all of the available evidence and if he issues a judgment that is warranted by the evidence, then he is just. One cannot expect anyone to act outside of his available knowledge. Justice requires rational identification of the facts and appropriate treatment of individuals. Justice requires neither omniscience nor infallibility.

A scientist can create a theory based on his observations and be completely rational about it, but what decides the truth of that theory is its accordance with reality and not the way in which it was derived. So a judge can make a ruling based strictly on the facts presented, he might be a rational and just man, and yet it's possible that the ruling will not accord with reality. In those situations, you can say the judge was fully rational, that he didn't make any mistakes, and yet he was wrong and someone was punished for a crime he didn't commit. If justice means "granting to each man that which he deserves", then did that judge succeed in dispensing justice? I'd say no. Being objective, being rational and being committed to the pursuit of justice is no guarrantee of success.

In my judgment to say that "justice" and the "virtue of justice" are the same is also to say that justice is whatever a man decides it is, independent of reality. Obviously if that virtue requires objectivity than that's good, but the formulation is still undercut by the primacy of consciousness. What if two men reach two different conclusions, based on different evidence? Are both conclusions just, simply by virtue of following the right form of thought?

[Oleksandr 0]

...

"granting to each man that which he deserves", then did that judge succeed in dispensing justice? I'd say no. Being objective, being rational and being committed to the pursuit of justice is no guarrantee of success.

That's what my question is about.

If that's justice then can one say that it's also unjust when an artist wasn't properly recognized in his time?

Since what he would "deserve" would be proper recognition?

How about getting the salary one deserves?

Or getting the treatment one deserves?

It seems like that kind of 'justice' doesn't take into account that there is a relationship between men.

Because if the other man doesn't have the knowledge, then does it mean that Francisco was unjustly slapped by Rearden?

Or was it just based on the choices and plan of Francisco?

This kind of justice would essentially mean "good men should good treatment." If that's justice then what is the reason for this "should"?

[Oleksandr 0]

Interestingly, Ayn Rand lexicon doesn't mention justice outside of objective evaluation.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/justice.html

..."objective judgment" is one of the wider categories to which the concept "justice" belongs.

So, according to that, there is no such concept of 'justice' as "good men get good treatment," since it doesn't contain any reference to "objective evaluation."

[Ifat Glassman 0]

...

bborg, your post Totally, completely, and fully, presented everything I wanted to say, better than I could have presented it at this point. Thank you!

The most important point, I think, is while justice is a concept relating to relationship of men, the ultimate "judge" of what is just or not is reality, just as the ultimate "judge" of what is true or false is reality, even though any man can be rational, regardless of the correctness of any specific conclusion he makes. I would define Justice as the state of actions_among_men being compatible with reality (this is too broad, but a rough idea of what I have in mind) (and I would take Peikoff's definition of "the virtue pf justice". But I would make a separation between "Justice" and "Virtue of justice", just like there is a separation between "reality" and "rationality").

Suppose I asked "Are anti-abortion rules just?" The answer would be that anti-abortion rules are not compatible with man's nature and therefor are not just.

However, if you try to answer this question using the definition, the answer would be that the question is invalid (as I understand it).

(The definition is: "Justice" is the virtue of judging men's character and conduct objectively and of acting accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves.")

To make it valid, I would first have to talk about some judgement or action (not about the rules themselves), then I should ask who did this action or judgement, and what was the context of his knowledge, to verify if his judgement was Objective.

It does not allow Justice to exist outside the context of a mind. This is my problem with it. But bborg has already showed this point very clearly.

Please correct me if I'm wrong with my interpretation of the definition. This is why I'm here for.

[bborg 0]

Interestingly, Ayn Rand lexicon doesn't mention justice outside of objective evaluation.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/justice.html

..."objective judgment" is one of the wider categories to which the concept "justice" belongs.

So, according to that, there is no such concept of 'justice' as "good men get good treatment," since it doesn't contain any reference to "objective evaluation."

Not true. The first entry, from Galt's speech:

Justice is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the character of nature, that you must judge all men as conscientiously as you judge inanimate objects, with the same respect for truth, with the same incorruptible vision, by as pure and as rational a process of identification—that every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly, that just as you do not pay a higher price for a rusty chunk of scrap than for a piece of shining metal, so you do not value a rotter above a hero—that your moral appraisal is the coin paying men for their virtues or vices, and this payment demands of you as scrupulous an honor as you bring to financial transactions—that to withhold your contempt from men's vices is an act of moral counterfeiting, and to withhold your admiration from their virtues is an act of moral embezzlement—that to place any other concern higher than justice is to devaluate your moral currency and defraud the good in favor of the evil, since only the good can lose by a default of justice and only the evil can profit—and that the bottom of the pit at the end of that road, the act of moral bankruptcy, is to punish men for their virtues and reward them for their vices, that that is the collapse to full depravity, the Black Mass of the worship of death, the dedication of your consciousness to the destruction of existence. [my bolding]

And from VoS:

It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men's virtues and from condemning men's vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you—whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?

Justice is not merely passive moral evaluation, but is the act of defending your values by supporting others who share them, and opposing those who threaten them.

So to answer your question:

This kind of justice would essentially mean "good men should good treatment." If that's justice then what is the reason for this "should"?

Good men should get good treatment because their existence furthers your values on Earth and, directly or indirectly, your life and happiness.

[bborg 0]

bborg, your post Totally, completely, and fully, presented everything I wanted to say, better than I could have presented it at this point. Thank you!

I’m glad it did, thanks.

The most important point, I think, is while justice is a concept relating to relationship of men, the ultimate "judge" of what is just or not is reality, just as the ultimate "judge" of what is true or false is reality, even though any man can be rational, regardless of the correctness of any specific conclusion he makes.

I agree. Your knowledge of reality, or lack of it, doesn’t change anything. If an absence of the right evidence causes you to form a conclusion that contradicts reality, then whether or not you used your evidence objectively or not you’re still stuck with a wrong conclusion. The only difference between conclusions about nature and about men is your subject.

Suppose I asked "Are anti-abortion rules just?" The answer would be that anti-abortion rules are not compatible with man's nature and therefor are not just.

However, if you try to answer this question using the definition, the answer would be that the question is invalid (as I understand it).

(The definition is: "Justice" is the virtue of judging men's character and conduct objectively and of acting accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves.")

To make it valid, I would first have to talk about some judgement or action (not about the rules themselves), then I should ask who did this action or judgement, and what was the context of his knowledge, to verify if his judgement was Objective.

It does not allow Justice to exist outside the context of a mind. This is my problem with it. But bborg has already showed this point very clearly.

Please correct me if I'm wrong with my interpretation of the definition. This is why I'm here for.

Well I'm not sure I understand your argument here, but I would say justice in treating a woman in this situation would be acknowledging and supporting her right to have the procedure done, and on top of that you may agree or disagree with her reasons for doing it and that would warrant either your moral approval or condemnation.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

...

"granting to each man that which he deserves", then did that judge succeed in dispensing justice? I'd say no. Being objective, being rational and being committed to the pursuit of justice is no guarantee of success.

That's what my question is about.

If that's justice then can one say that it's also unjust when an artist wasn't properly recognized in his time?

Since what he would "deserve" would be proper recognition?

How about getting the salary one deserves?

Or getting the treatment one deserves?

I would answer "Yes" to all. However, by your examples, it seems like you are making some tight connection between law and Justice. Law's purpose is to defend individual rights, which are the basic requirements of men living in a society. Law's purpose is not to enforce morality or justice. Individual rights are an example of something just, however it doesn't mean that law should enforce everything which is just. (I was speculating here about making a connection between law and justice because of your use of "should" later on and example of salary, so if I was just talking to myself please forgive me )

It seems like that kind of 'justice' doesn't take into account that there is a relationship between men.

Because if the other man doesn't have the knowledge, then does it mean that Francisco was unjustly slapped by Rearden?

Or was it just based on the choices and plan of Francisco?

My answer would be that Readen has 'The virtue of justice', but what he did was unjust. Just as Rearden's judgement of Francisco was mistaken, still Rearden was rational when making that judgement.

(Not sure if I would say Rearden was virtuous by using physical force, nor by ignoring the good things he did know about Francisco, but it's not the issue here)

This kind of justice would essentially mean "good men should good treatment." If that's justice then what is the reason for this "should"?

I don't know what "should" you're talking about. Justice either exists or does not exist about a certain situation/action/whatever, just as something is or is not true. "Should it be true" or "should it be just" are meaningless questions without some further context. "True" and "Just" are descriptions.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

One of the problems with this type of hypothetical argument is that the person who posits the argument can always assume a context of knowledge that is broader than the context of knowledge of the individuals in the example. There is no god in real life.

I think you missed the point of my question. I was not referring to the problem of judging if a person has the virtue of justice by the context of his own knowledge, or by some other, broader knowledge. I think the definition given by Peikoff for the virtue of justice is perfect.

I was referring to a different problem, which is objectivity of justice. The definition, as I understand it, determines justice according to some context of knowledge of some man. But something can still be objectively just or unjust, just as it can be true or false, even if no man exists with the correct knowledge. For something to be true or false there is no need for a god who knows all. There is no need for a consciousness, just for reality.

If a judge, or jury, has taken into account all of the available evidence and if he issues a judgment that is warranted by the evidence, then he is just. One cannot expect anyone to act outside of his available knowledge.

The judge and jury were dedicated to justice, by making an objective judgement and acting by it. This makes them virtuous, and flawless (regarding this case). But the result of their actions is not just, regardless of what they think, know or feel.

[Oleksandr 0]

...

..."objective judgment" is one of the wider categories to which the concept "justice" belongs.

So, according to that, there is no such concept of 'justice' as "good men get good treatment," since it doesn't contain any reference to "objective evaluation."

Not true. The first entry, from Galt's speech...

You have misunderstood me, Bborg.

I was talking about "objective evaluation," but I was not saying that that's ALL that justice is. The virtue of justice most certainly involves acting on your objective evaluations. However, I did not discuss this part, because I was drawing the difference between the justice you and Ifatart are discussing and the one I'm discussing.

Good men should get good treatment because their existence furthers your values on Earth and, directly or indirectly, your life and happiness.

Your statement does not cover the definition you and Ifatart are using. This statement only covers actions of an individual.

However, you have also answered positively to my question of "If that's justice then can one say that it's also unjust when an artist wasn't properly recognized in his time?" However, this questions is NOT about objective evaluation. For example, it's quite possible that some people didn't like rational art during the life time of the artist, and thus they didn't recognize him or care about his art. Or, his art simple didn't get around to rational people. So in such case even though people of the artist's time followed their objective evaluation, can _you_ say that it was unjust that that artist was not recognized in his time?

To be clear: keep in mind I do not ask if an individual should recognize that artist given the evidence for the artist's importance. I already agree with that. It is included in my understanding of justice. What I'm asking is: is there such a thing as second meaning of justice as discussed in this thread.

1st meaning: "One should _give_ proper judgments to people." (that's my meaning)

2nd meaning: "One should _get_ proper treatment from other people." (this is the meaning of justice that I disagree with.)

So, the essential difference between two meanings is give versus get. That's what my previous posts were about.

"Give" involves objective judgment (in the case of Objectivist definition). "Get" doesn't involve that. It simply states that one ought to get good treatment.

My problem with "get" version of justice is that it sounds detached from individual judgment, and instead becomes some expected justice about the reality itself.

[Alon Tsin 0]

Ifat,

Justice cannot exist without a mind.

Justice has meaning only as a result of an action - the action of judgment performed by man's mind. A man judges people by comparing their values (as deduced from their actions) with his own values using all the data available to him. Justice is the result (read -virtue) of the action of judgment. Without the action of judgment there is no Justice - there is no Justice without a mind.

Reality, by itself, has no bearing with Justice. There is only causality - If A than B. Only by using your mind to create values based on reality can you define concepts like "Good" or "Justice". They are not intrinsic values.

Therefore, when you say that "the result of their actions is not Just", you have used your mind and the data available to judge - and to say that Justice was not served. You cannot divorce the concept of Justice from the mind - you must use it to judge.

That's what I believe Paul tried to say - when you said in your example that the result of the judge's actions were unjust you used your mind to analyze the data you have about the man (which is probably different from the data the judge had) and then pronouncing that the man was treated unjustly. To put it more figuratively : Reality doesn't "care" about what happens to the man - YOU do.

To sum my point up - Justice is not somehow embedded in reality. It , like any other virtue, has to be presupposed by two question - for whom and for what. It has to be created by your mind.

[Alon Tsin 0]

Therefore, when you say that "the result of their actions is not Just", you have used your mind and the data available to judge - and to say that Justice was not served. You cannot divorce the concept of Justice from the mind - you must use it to judge.

Sorry, it's very late... :-)

I meant to say:

Therefore, when you say that "the result of their actions is not Just", you have used your mind and the data available for you to judge him - and to say that Justice was not served. You cannot divorce the concept of Justice from the mind - you must use you mind to judge.

[Paul's Here 0]

One of the problems with this type of hypothetical argument is that the person who posits the argument can always assume a context of knowledge that is broader than the context of knowledge of the individuals in the example. There is no god in real life.

I think you missed the point of my question. I was not referring to the problem of judging if a person has the virtue of justice by the context of his own knowledge, or by some other, broader knowledge. I think the definition given by Peikoff for the virtue of justice is perfect.

I was referring to a different problem, which is objectivity of justice. The definition, as I understand it, determines justice according to some context of knowledge of some man. But something can still be objectively just or unjust, just as it can be true or false, even if no man exists with the correct knowledge. For something to be true or false there is no need for a god who knows all. There is no need for a consciousness, just for reality.

I disagree with your formulation. In principle, the only things required for objectivity and justice are that all of the available evidence was taken into account, the judge used his reason in evaluating the evidence, the judge formulated the proper actions to take with respect to the individual, and the judges actions are consistent with the evidence.

There most certainly is a need for consciousness in justice, specifically human consciousness. Justice applies in a social context. And there most certainly is a need for consciousness when it comes to truth and falsity. Objectivity is a relationship between consciousness and reality. Now, there certainly may be facts that a judge is unaware of when he makes a judgment; he is not omniscient. But until such facts come to light, justice has been done.

If a judge, or jury, has taken into account all of the available evidence and if he issues a judgment that is warranted by the evidence, then he is just. One cannot expect anyone to act outside of his available knowledge.

The judge and jury were dedicated to justice, by making an objective judgment and acting by it. This makes them virtuous, and flawless (regarding this case). But the result of their actions is not just, regardless of what they think, know or feel.

But, again, you are judging the judges actions in a context that is not available to the judge. The only way you can assert that an injustice was done is after you find out evidence that the person did not commit the crime. And even more, if you later become aware of facts that show a convicted person is innocent, you are not entitled to claim that the judge was unjust or an injustice was done. The only thing that may properly be stated is that a error was made because of insufficient evidence.

You cannot assert an injustice was done by the judge without knowing the evidence for your assertion. If your standard is going to be "the judge is virtuous but we cannot assert justice was done until some future time when no evidence is ever provided to show the innocence of the man" then I disagree with you.

[Paul's Here 0]

One of the problems with this type of hypothetical argument is that the person who posits the argument can always assume a context of knowledge that is broader than the context of knowledge of the individuals in the example. There is no god in real life. If a judge, or jury, has taken into account all of the available evidence and if he issues a judgment that is warranted by the evidence, then he is just. One cannot expect anyone to act outside of his available knowledge. Justice requires rational identification of the facts and appropriate treatment of individuals. Justice requires neither omniscience nor infallibility.

A scientist can create a theory based on his observations and be completely rational about it, but what decides the truth of that theory is its accordance with reality and not the way in which it was derived. So a judge can make a ruling based strictly on the facts presented, he might be a rational and just man, and yet it's possible that the ruling will not accord with reality. In those situations, you can say the judge was fully rational, that he didn't make any mistakes, and yet he was wrong and someone was punished for a crime he didn't commit. If justice means "granting to each man that which he deserves", then did that judge succeed in dispensing justice? I'd say no. Being objective, being rational and being committed to the pursuit of justice is no guarrantee of success.

I disagree with your statement that justice was not done for the reasons I state in Post 16 below.

Your last sentence is somewhat confusing to me. Success at what? The sentence and your context seems to be implying "if I am rational and if I am just, there is no guarantee that I am successful at being rational or just?" If that is the case, I would claim that is a contradiction and it opens the door to skepticism. In reality, "if I am rational and if I am just, there is no guarantee that I did not make an error." If I make an error, that does not negate the judgment of justice, just as your scientist was wrong but not irrational. Justice means "granting to each man that which he deserves" within the context of available knowledge.

In my judgment to say that "justice" and the "virtue of justice" are the same is also to say that justice is whatever a man decides it is, independent of reality. Obviously if that virtue requires objectivity than that's good, but the formulation is still undercut by the primacy of consciousness. What if two men reach two different conclusions, based on different evidence? Are both conclusions just, simply by virtue of following the right form of thought?

I disagree. There is no such implication in my statement. If two men reach different conclusions based upon different evidence, I would certainly not be surprised. Now if two men reach different conclusions based upon the same evidence, then there is a basis for argument. It is possible that both judgments could be just, but that implies a wider context of knowledge that would account for the two conclusions.

[Paul's Here 0]

---------------

If two men reach different conclusions based upon different evidence, I would certainly not be surprised. Now if two men reach different conclusions based upon the same evidence, then there is a basis for argument. It is possible that both judgments could be just, but that implies a wider context of knowledge that would account for the two conclusions.

Let's consider an example. I have a Friend A, who had a personal disagreement with Friend B. The conflict between A and B was personal. I have sufficient information about the conflict to know that I do not consider A my friend anymore. I have Friend C who is a friend of A. Both myself and Friend C have evaluated different evidence about A and we've reached different conclusions. So what is the problem? None that I can see.

Now if I were to violate the confidence of Friend B and tell C about the conflict between A and B, I would certainly regard C differently if he still regarded A as a friend. But then I would be in the situation of being judged by B as having violated his confidence and B would not regard me as his friend. And C would likewise judge me negatively if I had violated B's confidence even though B had sided with A.

[Paul's Here 0]

---------

even though B had sided with A.

Correction:

even though C had sided with A.

[bborg 0]

I disagree with your statement that justice was not done for the reasons I state in Post 16 below.

What would such an example be called then? Justice gone wrong? An error of justice? Because obviously regardless of whether the judge made the decision objectively and honestly, he was wrong and the accused received a sentence he did not deserve.

Your last sentence is somewhat confusing to me. Success at what? The sentence and your context seems to be implying "if I am rational and if I am just, there is no guarantee that I am successful at being rational or just?" If that is the case, I would claim that is a contradiction and it opens the door to skepticism. In reality, "if I am rational and if I am just, there is no guarantee that I did not make an error." If I make an error, that does not negate the judgment of justice, just as your scientist was wrong but not irrational. Justice means "granting to each man that which he deserves" within the context of available knowledge.

Success at reaching a true principle, or at treating someone as they deserve. Sorry, I thought the meaning was implicit in my argument. Just because you are making a decision objectively does not guarrantee that you are right. It is possible to treat someone wrongly even if you are basing your judgment on objective observation. Just because you went about the judgment the right way does not mean they were deserving of the way you treated them. This is an example of an innocent error. Sometimes there may be no way for you to know all the relevant facts (or that way may be unethical), but that does not change the truth or falsity of your conclusion. As Dr. Binswanger explained it in one of his lectures (don't remember which), you can be "contextually certain", but not "contextually right". If a surgeon operates on a patient who was misdiagnosed and dies on the table, you can say the surgeon was right to be certain about what he was doing, but you can't say the patient is therefore "contextually alive". You knowledge or ignorance does not change reality.

I disagree. There is no such implication in my statement. If two men reach different conclusions based upon different evidence, I would certainly not be surprised. Now if two men reach different conclusions based upon the same evidence, then there is a basis for argument. It is possible that both judgments could be just, but that implies a wider context of knowledge that would account for the two conclusions.

I don't think the implication was intended, but I do believe your argument appeals to primacy of consciousness. If justice means the act pursuing justice, then it seems by definition it is reduced to actions of consciousness and not to the facts of reality.

Take the example I raised, about two men forming two different conclusions. If justice merely means making judgments about people's character objectively on the evidence available to you, then both conclusions are by definition just. However I think it's clear that when a conflict like this occurs, at least one person is wrong. That's because justice means people getting what they deserve, and that is based on the facts of reality and not on the evaluations of others.

[bborg 0]

Maybe what this comes down to is semantics, so this is how I see the relationship of terms here.

“Rational” refers only to the method by which an idea was derived, and “truth” and “falsity” is their status against the facts of reality.

“Justice”, on the other hand, refers both to the objective evaluation and to the status of such judgments against reality. We say “justice has been done” as we would say “we’ve found the truth”. In being just, we pursue justice, as we pursue truth in being rational.

That’s the way I’ve always understood the language is used, but perhaps there is a clearer way to distinguish between the virtue and the value being pursued. We seem to use the word “justice” to refer to both, which is confusing.

Thoughts?

[Alon Tsin 0]

....

“Justice”, on the other hand, refers both to the objective evaluation and to the status of such judgments against reality. We say “justice has been done” as we would say “we’ve found the truth”. In being just, we pursue justice, as we pursue truth in being rational.

...

Perhaps ,as you say, there is a confusion here. I think it is more accurate to say that the value is Judgment and the virtue is Justice. In being Judgmental (meaning - morally/lawfully evaluating a man using all the facts known about his actions) you pursue Justice.

I think Judgment is a value that must be pursued by rational human beings in order to help them choose who to trade values with. The virtue you get is Justice - every man you interact with gets what he deserves from you.

Am I right?

[Ifat Glassman 0]

I think you missed the point of my question. I was not referring to the problem of judging if a person has the virtue of justice by the context of his own knowledge, or by some other, broader knowledge. I think the definition given by Peikoff for the virtue of justice is perfect.

I was referring to a different problem, which is objectivity of justice. The definition, as I understand it, determines justice according to some context of knowledge of some man. But something can still be objectively just or unjust, just as it can be true or false, even if no man exists with the correct knowledge. For something to be true or false there is no need for a god who knows all. There is no need for a consciousness, just for reality.

I disagree with your formulation. In principle, the only things required for objectivity and justice are that all of the available evidence was taken into account, the judge used his reason in evaluating the evidence, the judge formulated the proper actions to take with respect to the individual, and the judges actions are consistent with the evidence.

Here is the problem: I am claiming there are two concepts of justice. You only use one of them, and then you judge everything I say out of using the one you accepted. There is no point in doing that. If I use the word "cake" to mean X and you use it to mean Y, then of course whatever statement I say using "cake" as X would be wrong from your point of view. There is no need to repeatedly point it out, it is obvious to both of us. Therefor the focus, for efficient discussion, should be either saying that my other concept of justice is invalid and does not respond to anything in reality, or contains some contradictions (NOT with the other concept, but with the ideas it leans on). So please stop beating the horse, which was never alive.

When you say: "In principle, the only things required for objectivity and justice are that all of the available evidence was taken into account, the judge used his reason..." You are using Peikoff's definition, which I already said I do not disagree with. You are using "cake" as Y to show why "cake" as X is wrong. And of course it would be, there was never an argument about that. The argument is about whether "cake" as X is a valid concept.

[bborg 0]

Perhaps ,as you say, there is a confusion here. I think it is more accurate to say that the value is Judgment and the virtue is Justice. In being Judgmental (meaning - morally/lawfully evaluating a man using all the facts known about his actions) you pursue Justice.

I think Judgment is a value that must be pursued by rational human beings in order to help them choose who to trade values with. The virtue you get is Justice - every man you interact with gets what he deserves from you.

Am I right?

If, according to Dr. Peikoff's definition (which I agree with), justice means "the virtue of judging men's character and conduct objectively and of acting accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves", then the value you are ultimately pursuing is the protection of values, not the judging itself. You want good men to be free to produce, and bad men to be punished and prevented from hurting the good. The confusion is that this protection is also called "justice". So while justice can be defined as a virtue, what it pursues is a value we call "justice".

Contrast this with the term "rational", which has just the one meaning as a virtue. You are not rational in order to pursue reason. That would be intrinsicism.

The result of this is that you can have the virtue of justice, judging men's character objectively and acting on that judgment, and yet if you make an innocent error the result can be that you punish a good man or reward a bad one. I would say if you punish a good man - whether with malice or innocence - you have failed to achieve the value of justice (in the sense explained above). The good has not been protected.

Do you call this injustice? If not, what is it called?

[Alon Tsin 0]

If, according to Dr. Peikoff's definition (which I agree with), justice means "the virtue of judging men's character and conduct objectively and of acting accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves", then the value you are ultimately pursuing is the protection of values, not the judging itself. You want good men to be free to produce, and bad men to be punished and prevented from hurting the good. The confusion is that this protection is also called "justice". So while justice can be defined as a virtue, what it pursues is a value we call "justice".

Good point, I agree with you.

....

The result of this is that you can have the virtue of justice, judging men's character objectively and acting on that judgment, and yet if you make an innocent error the result can be that you punish a good man or reward a bad one. I would say if you punish a good man - whether with malice or innocence - you have failed to achieve the value of justice (in the sense explained above). The good has not been protected.

Do you call this injustice? If not, what is it called?

Let me propose a more detailed example - Let's say I am a judge in a case of theft. All the evidence that the police brought to me pointed on this man. After objectively reviewing the data and consulting with every expert necessary, I decide that the man is guilty and sentence him to serve time in prison.I, as the judge, have done everything rationally possible to reach my judgment. I have used all the data and performed all the necessary deductions to reach my verdict. Therefore - I am virtuous. I am not omniscient - I do not know everything. I can only use the knowledge available to me (In this case , the facts brought by the police and the experts).

From my point of view I know I did everything I could to mete out Justice in this case - That's everything I, as a rational human being, can do.

Let us say, however, that you (bborg) claim that justice was not served and a good man was hurt. The only way you can rationally make this proclamation is if there are facts that you know and I, as judge, do not. You ,as a rational human being, have performed the same process I made - You rationally and objectively analyzed the data in your possession and concluded that the man is innocent. From your conclusions, there was no justice and a good man is rotting in jail. You would be right to proclaim it so.

If you believe that Justice was not served - you can come to me (the Judge) and give me the facts that exonerate this man (assuming you don't sacrifice anything by doing that). If you don't do that, then you are the one whose actions are unjust - not mine. If I do nothing with those facts , I am unjust. As simple as that.

Let me try to sum my point : Objectivism teaches that every man must make judgments based on rational, reality-based values and on all the knowledge in his possession. If you do that, then you are virtuous , and that's all you should care about. I don't give a damn whether anyone else sees my actions as unjust , unless those people share their knowledge with me and convince me otherwise. To answer your question: if I punish a good man , based on all the facts I know or can get - I have not failed to achieve the value of justice.