What is Justice

[Paul's Here 0]

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

I have searched the Ayn Rand Lexicon, and found no definition of of the concept "Reality", so I am going to try and define it myself. Reality is merely the axiom of existence , the axiom of identity and the law of causality. To be even more crude I'd say that Reality is a bunch of things happening according to the laws of the universe. No more, no less.

------

Typically, the term reality and existence are essentially synonyms and often are used interchangeably. Sometimes, "reality" is used in the context of existence as experienced by a consciousness. An ant's reality is different than your reality but existence is the same for both (you can perceive the stars, an ant can't). A fiction writer creates his own reality within the story. I don't want to get us off topic with this, so I'll keep this comment short.

[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?

Ayn Rand says something very specific about justice on page 51 of the "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology". In chapter 5, "Definitions", she devotes a paragraph to the definition of the concept "justice". Especially notice the italicized sentences, and compare them to Mr. Peikoff's definition. Notice that not once is the word "virtue" entertained in Ayn Rand's definition:

For instance: what fact of reality gave rise to the concept "justice"? The fact that man must draw conclusions about the things, people and events around him, i.e., must judge and evaluate them. Is his judgment automatically right? No. What causes his judgment to be wrong? The lack of sufficient evidence, or his evasion of the evidence, or his inclusion of considerations other than the fact of the case. How, then, is he to arrive at the right judgment? By basing it exclusively on the factual evidence and by considering all the relevant evidence available. But isn't this a description of "objectivity"? Yes, "objective judgment" is one of the wider categories to which the concept "justice" belongs. What distinguishes "justice" from other instances of objective judgment? When one evaluates the nature or actions of inanimate objects, the criterion of judgment is determined by the particular purpose for which one evaluates them. But how does one determine a criterion for evaluating the character and actions of men, in view of the fact that men possess the faculty of volition? What science can provide objective criterion of evaluation in regard to volitional matters? Ethics. Now, do I need a concept to designate the act of judging a man's character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion? Yes. That concept is "justice."

Nowhere in that paragraph is there a mention of virtue, and those were Ayn Rand's exact words. I don't understand why Mr. Peikoff uses the word "virtue" in the definition of the concept of justice. I think "virtue" is a separate concept, and a wide-ranging one. "Virtue", to me, is a sort of measurement that determines how good a thing is, comparing a thing against objective standards that are different for each type of existent. A screwdriver will have its own standards with which to measure or determine its "virtue". A work of art will have different standards with which to measure its virtue. So too will "Justice" have its own standards by which to measure the virtuousness of any particular act of justice. If we are to say "Justice is the virtue of...", then what prevents us from saying "Art is the virtue of....", "Beauty is the virtue of....", "Ethics is the virtue of..." It is better, I think, to factor out "virtue", place it in its own concept, and have that concept subsume every set of objective standards for which the existents are measured against to determine their virtuousness.

In the quote by Rand you offered, she is not defining "justice"; she is asking "what fact of reality gave rise to the concept "justice"?" The rules of definition require a genus which is a concept that relates the term to a wider group of concepts that have attributes in common. If you doubt that Rand meant justice to be a virtue, read Galt's speech where he discusses the Objectivist values and virtues.

[Paul's Here 0]

-----------

It is not a value for society if a good man is sent to prison. It is not a value to society, not to the judge, and not to the person himself, since reality is that the man is NOT bad. If I think that cutting my own, healthy arm is good, and I cut it off, I did not achieve a value.

Once again, since Justice is based on the knowledge of the judge (whether a man or a real judge)

Is it just that this man goes to prison? If you ask the judge, you get one answer. If you ask the person who is accused, you get another. One says "this is just" one says "this is not just". So are they both right?

Even guilty people assert their innocence, so, indeed, the question is not "are they both right" but how do we decide what the actual facts of the case are? These are questions involving epistemology and objectivity, and are outside the scope of this thread. (OPAR is an excellent source of that discussion.) And the next question, when dealing with people is, how do we treat people in a manner warranted by the actual facts that have been determined. As a judge, one investigates the facts and makes a judgment.

It is the facts and the objective methodology that renders a judgment just. If an error is determined later, justice requires that the person be set free. But one cannot say that the person did not get what he deserved because ethics is a field within epistemology. One cannot make error a condition for invalidating objective ethical statements. One simply states, when there is subsequent evidence, that "we made a mistake and you do not deserve to be in jail now or in the future."

If one wants to step outside the nature of this situation in society, one had best live as a hermit. In society, what every person deserves is to be judged by objective principles. Nothing more can be accomplished.

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

[RayK 0]

EdFab,

I do not understand what you are trying to get at in your post. A virtue is an action that one applies to achieve their values. Justice is a virtue, it is the act of judging someone for what they are worth and no more.

RayK, my point was about definitions, and that there was something definitive mentioned about the definition of the concept of justice, made by Ayn Rand herself. Your definition of virtue, to me, is more of a type of virtue, related specifically to human actions. However, to me Virtue is a wider concept that designates how good a thing is, any existent thing, in terms of its nature, as compared to a set of objective standards. By my definition, I can investigate the virtue of inanimate objects as well as the virtue of human actions. The measurement is with respect to objective standards that are appropriate for the thing under investigation, as determined by its nature.

Virtue is an ethical term that designates one's actions toward the attainment of one's values such as rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice and so on.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Ayn Rand says something very specific about justice on page 51 of the "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology". In chapter 5, "Definitions", she devotes a paragraph to the definition of the concept "justice". Especially notice the italicized sentences, and compare them to Mr. Peikoff's definition. Notice that not once is the word "virtue" entertained in Ayn Rand's definition:

For instance: what fact of reality gave rise to the concept "justice"? The fact that man must draw conclusions about the things, people and events around him, i.e., must judge and evaluate them. Is his judgment automatically right? No. What causes his judgment to be wrong? The lack of sufficient evidence, or his evasion of the evidence, or his inclusion of considerations other than the fact of the case. How, then, is he to arrive at the right judgment? By basing it exclusively on the factual evidence and by considering all the relevant evidence available. But isn't this a description of "objectivity"? Yes, "objective judgment" is one of the wider categories to which the concept "justice" belongs. What distinguishes "justice" from other instances of objective judgment? When one evaluates the nature or actions of inanimate objects, the criterion of judgment is determined by the particular purpose for which one evaluates them. But how does one determine a criterion for evaluating the character and actions of men, in view of the fact that men possess the faculty of volition? What science can provide objective criterion of evaluation in regard to volitional matters? Ethics. Now, do I need a concept to designate the act of judging a man's character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion? Yes. That concept is "justice."

Nowhere in that paragraph is there a mention of virtue, and those were Ayn Rand's exact words.

Quite true, but in Galt's speech she discusses the various virtues and justice is one of them.

There really is no conflict here because exercising "objective judgment" is the same thing as exercising rational judgment, i.e., the virtue of rationality. Since all virtues are rationality in various contexts, so it justice. Justice is the process of rationally, objectively judging other men.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

EdFab,

I do not understand what you are trying to get at in your post. A virtue is an action that one applies to achieve their values. Justice is a virtue, it is the act of judging someone for what they are worth and no more.

RayK, my point was about definitions, and that there was something definitive mentioned about the definition of the concept of justice, made by Ayn Rand herself. Your definition of virtue, to me, is more of a type of virtue, related specifically to human actions. However, to me Virtue is a wider concept that designates how good a thing is, any existent thing, in terms of its nature, as compared to a set of objective standards. By my definition, I can investigate the virtue of inanimate objects as well as the virtue of human actions. The measurement is with respect to objective standards that are appropriate for the thing under investigation, as determined by its nature.

That is virtue as Aristotle saw it, but not as Ayn Rand defined it. For Ayn Rand, a virtue is an action that gains and/or keeps a value. I'm on the cruise and don't have a cite for you, but I think it's in Galt's speech.

[RayK 0]

""Value" is that which one acts to gain and keep, "virtue" is the action by which one gains and keeps it." [Galt's speech, For the New Intellectual, pg 121]

p.s. I hope you are having a good time, Betsy.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

[is it just that this man goes to prison? If you ask the judge, you get one answer. If you ask the person who is accused, you get another. One says "this is just" one says "this is not just". So are they both right?

Yes - with reference to their context, you admit the judge made no error in judgement, so until evidence shows otherwise, how can one say he is not just?

The person who is accused knows he didn't do it. And he says that it is not just that he sits in prison.

Now the question is not whether the judge is just (as a virtue), but whether the question of "which one of them is right?" (right about their evaluation of the justice of sending him to prison) is a valid question.

When two men have different knowledge, and reach contradictory conclusions, one of them is right and one of them is wrong. And they can settle this by comparing their knowledge. Assuming they are both rational, one will say "I was wrong" and one will say "I am right".

Can you say the same thing about a judgement regarding justice? If Mr. A says "this is just" and Mr. B says "this is unjust" - is it valid to ask which one of them is right and which is wrong? Note, that I am not asking if they are just men (as a virtue).

I already agree that both are.

So assuming both are rational, is it valid, in your opinion, that at the end of discussion they would say: "you are right, it was unjust" and the other one will say "I am right, it is just"? (notice the difference from "you are right, but I am just" "I am right, but you and I are just". I am not asking about Justice as a virtue).

I would define justice (not the virtue) as the status of action/actions which match (correct) ethics and the facts of reality, thus granting to each man that which he deserves ("deserves" as judged by correct ethical principles).

This concept of Justice is the value sought through the virtue of justice.

Is this concept valid or not?

[Arnold 0]

When two men have different knowledge, and reach contradictory conclusions, one of them is right and one of them is wrong. And they can settle this by comparing their knowledge. Assuming they are both rational, one will say "I was wrong" and one will say "I am right".

Can you say the same thing about a judgement regarding justice? If Mr. A says "this is just" and Mr. B says "this is unjust" - is it valid to ask which one of them is right and which is wrong? Note, that I am not asking if they are just men (as a virtue).

I already agree that both are.

So assuming both are rational, is it valid, in your opinion, that at the end of discussion they would say: "you are right, it was unjust" and the other one will say "I am right, it is just"? (notice the difference from "you are right, but I am just" "I am right, but you and I are just". I am not asking about Justice as a virtue).

Again I point out that being 'right' is always in relation to a given context. Since there are two contexts, one which has available more knowledge than the other, you cannot evaluate them on equal terms. In other words, the question is invalid unless the terms of evaluation refer to the particular situation you are judging (rather than encompassing both situations in the single evaluation).

It is true that in this example an innocent man is jailed, but other than observing that it was lack of information that put him there (lack of information - not lack of justice) there is no need to question the judgement itself. The question you ask assumes a context less absolute of justice. There is no such thing.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

Again I point out that being 'right' is always in relation to a given context.

I disagree. The knowledge of whether something is right or wrong is in relation to a given context. But not the status itself. Someone cannot make something wrong - right, simply by having a limited context.

(btw, I do not see how this related to my previous post though).

The process of deciding if one is right or wrong about something can only be done in the context of his knowledge, but a man is either right or wrong about something regardless of anyone's context, since being right about something means that his idea matches reality.

If whatever years ago people thought the sun revolves around the earth, they were not right (even though their context was limited). The context I use to make this judgement is my own. Without a consciousness there is no way to hold knowledge whether or not something is true. However, this fact does not mean that something is not right/wrong unless there is a consciousness to judge it. It only means that it is possible to KNOW right/wrong if there is a consciousness to think about this thing. It doesn't change the fact that something is what it is, whether a consciousness exists to grasp it or not.

They decided and thought that they are right, and judged it by the best of the information they had available. At the time, they thought they were right. But they were wrong. We know it NOW, but it holds true for the past as well (meaning that we know now that they were wrong then).

Since there are two contexts, one which has available more knowledge than the other, you cannot evaluate them on equal terms.

I don't understand the meaning of "evaluate them on equal terms". Evaluate what about them, exactly?

Are you saying that in order to evaluate whether something statement made by someone is right or wrong, that I have to rely on their context of knowledge to make this judgement?

It is true that in this example an innocent man is jailed, but other than observing that it was lack of information that put him there (lack of information - not lack of justice) there is no need to question the judgement itself. The question you ask assumes a context less absolute of justice. There is no such thing.

I don't think there is a reason to question the judgement itself. Like I said, the judgement was objective, rational, according to facts, so I have no problems with the judgement.

The question I ask does not assume a context-less absolute of justice. It is a recognition of the primacy of existence.

How about this question: Does this man deserve to sit in prison? If two men disagree - is one of them right and the other wrong? Or are they both right automatically, since each has his own context, and everyone can go home, no discussion needed?

[bborg 0]

Please demonstrate how your version of justice is independent of epistemology or morality?

I did not say it was independent of morality.

How does "getting what one deserve" lie outside these fields? How does one protect the good outside of anyone's judgment of what constitutes the good.

I didn't claim you could protect the good without making judgments.

How do you establish the requirements for your life without a means of knowing?

Didn't claim you could.

You have not yet demonstrated how you would resolve this, other than saying that the value of justice was not acquired. You have not established how you achieve justice without a process of justice.

Didn't claim you could achieve justice without the virtue of justice.

You assert that if an error is made, the value is retroactively negated and not achieved once the error is identified. Or perhaps you think the value was never achieved since an error was made.

That's correct. If an innocent man goes to jail, justice was not achieved, even if the judge believes in all honestly that it was.

One of the metaphysical requirements for life in society is that individuals be judged by objective rules. The exercise of justice is a metaphysical requirement for life. There is no contradiction in my statements, nor any implication of the primacy of consciousness.

I suggest you reread my previous posts to see what my argument was, because most of your objections here attribute to me ideas that I have not presented. If there is anything about my posts which I can clarify, please let me know.

[bborg 0]

Since there are two contexts, one which has available more knowledge than the other, you cannot evaluate them on equal terms.

I don't understand the meaning of "evaluate them on equal terms". Evaluate what about them, exactly?

Are you saying that in order to evaluate whether something statement made by someone is right or wrong, that I have to rely on their context of knowledge to make this judgement?

This is a keen question. If truth and falsity depends on the context of your knowledge, then you really can't judge the ideas of others at all, because that would require mind-reading. It would mean that communication is impossible, because it would require knowledge of the mental states of others. And that's precisely what subjectivists claim, so we need to be careful to avoid that trap. Truth means truth of reality, not truth of the context of your knowledge.

[Alon Tsin 0]

Since there are two contexts, one which has available more knowledge than the other, you cannot evaluate them on equal terms.

I don't understand the meaning of "evaluate them on equal terms". Evaluate what about them, exactly?

Are you saying that in order to evaluate whether something statement made by someone is right or wrong, that I have to rely on their context of knowledge to make this judgement?

This is a keen question. If truth and falsity depends on the context of your knowledge, then you really can't judge the ideas of others at all, because that would require mind-reading. It would mean that communication is impossible, because it would require knowledge of the mental states of others. And that's precisely what subjectivists claim, so we need to be careful to avoid that trap. Truth means truth of reality, not truth of the context of your knowledge.

The trap here is twofold - on the one hand subjectivism, on the other hand intincism.

In order to judge someone, you have to rely on their actions and on your knowledge+reason. You cannot read his mind, therefore you have to be aware of his actions. You are not omniscient (meaning- sometimes you cannot know everything about a situation) , therefore you have to rely on your own knowledge and reason. That is all you can do.

If you do not judge because you claim that you can't read minds (as bborg stated) - you use Subjectivism.

If you claim that truth/justice is embedded in reality, rather then being based on a meticulous process of gaining knowledge and using reason to integrate it - That is intrincism.

[bborg 0]

If you claim that truth/justice is embedded in reality, rather then being based on a meticulous process of gaining knowledge and using reason to integrate it - That is intrincism.

But no one here has claimed any of this.

[Alon Tsin 0]

If you claim that truth/justice is embedded in reality, rather then being based on a meticulous process of gaining knowledge and using reason to integrate it - That is intrincism.

But no one here has claimed any of this.

The idea that the concepts justice or truth are only reality - or that it exists regardless of any consciousness - is intrinsic. In other words - the idea that there is some kind of ultimate justice or ultimate truth that exist in reality without consciousness to create them is intrinsic, since it says that values are disconnected from mind and context.

I chose one quote on this thread that shows intrincism, although there are many more:

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.

[bborg 0]

I chose one quote on this thread that shows intrincism, although there are many more:

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.

Seems I didn't pay enough attention outside of my own exchanges. I agree this is an intrinsic statement.

However, this was not my own rebuttal against the idea of contextual truth (and I don't think it was ifatart's major point). Truth is a status of a claim as corresponding to reality, not to its correspondence to a context of knowledge. I am not denying that a process is required to obtain knowledge, but that process is not what makes an idea true or just.

[Oleksandr 0]

bborg, I made a post in reply to yours a while ago here in this thread, but never got a reply from you on it.

I'm referring to post #13. Would you mind commenting on it?

[bborg 0]

"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.

This is not the distinction I was trying to make when I used the word "get". It is not between giving and getting, but between the virtue of being just (making objective judgments about men's character based on the evidence at hand, and treating those individuals accordingly), and the value of justice being realized (when men are treated as they deserve by you and others).

So when I said "get", I meant when someone gets treated as they deserve (which is the value, justice), as opposed to the process of deciding what that treatment is (which is the virtue, justice). I didn't mean "get" as opposed to "give". I hope my other posts help to make that clear.

My point has been that just as you can be rational and form an opinion that is wrong because you don't have all the relevant facts, so you can be just and still fail to treat someone as they deserve. Having the virtue is not the value; the value is what the virtue is aimed at gaining.

[Oleksandr 0]

My point has been that just as you can be rational and form an opinion that is wrong because you don't have all the relevant facts, so you can be just and still fail to treat someone as they deserve. Having the virtue is not the value; the value is what the virtue is aimed at gaining.

Alright, so your definition of justice is the kind of value. Since it's a value, it's something one act to gain. But then I get confused when you say:

I meant when someone gets treated as they deserve (which is the value, justice)

because value is something one gets or gives. How then can you say that justice is when a person "receives" what he ought to receive? This mean that whatever another individual was trying to achieve (when giving the treatment) based on his rational choice could still lead to injustice (though of a different kind according to you, I realize that). (Yes, I realize you think that such person could still be just.)

However, values are tied to evaluations of an individual. How can then your value of justice be considered if it doesn't take into account the evaluation of an individual who gives the treatment? (I refer to treatment in your quote "I meant when someone gets treated as they deserve.")

So, I'm still confused how what you are described isn't purely "get"-concept as I described in my post.

[Oleksandr 0]

Please demonstrate how your version of justice is independent of epistemology or morality?

I did not say it was independent of morality.

(While Paul is away, I'll let myself speak for him based on his posts.)

I think what Paul meant was to ask you how your statements do not logically lead to a conclusion that your version of justice is independent of epistemology or morality.

I don't think he meant to state that your version leads there, but instead asked you to show how it doesn't.

I would be interested in such explanation myself.

[bborg 0]

because value is something one gets or gives. How then can you say that justice is when a person "receives" what he ought to receive? This mean that whatever another individual was trying to achieve (when giving the treatment) based on his rational choice could still lead to injustice (though of a different kind according to you, I realize that). (Yes, I realize you think that such person could still be just.)

However, values are tied to evaluations of an individual. How can then your value of justice be considered if it doesn't take into account the evaluation of an individual who gives the treatment? (I refer to treatment in your quote "I meant when someone gets treated as they deserve.")

So, I'm still confused how what you are described isn't purely "get"-concept as I described in my post.

Making judgments about men are, like judgments about nature, derived by making observations and reasoning from them. If you are rational, then you're going to be right a lot more than if you're irrational (to put it mildly). So you can say about someone who is wrong but rational that he's going about things the right way.

However, how are you saying we should take into account someone's rationality when judging their ideas? Do you mean if they are wrong, the fact that the idea was derived rationally should make it less wrong? If a scientist develops a theory and we look at his derivation and agree with his method, should we cling to it if it's later contradicted by further evidence?

I don't see any difference with regard to justice. If someone comes to a wrong conclusion, whether they are virtuous or not doesn't make it less wrong. Do you think the innocent man in prison suffers less if the judge was just, than if he was evasive and malicious? Is the patient dead on the operating table less dead because it was the result of honest error, rather than incompetence?

I see judgment and the "meta-judgment" if you will of the people who form those judgments as separate questions. I could admire the scientist who never was able to prove his theory, admire him for his objectivity and honesty. However reality, not the scientist's virtue, is the final arbiter of whether his theory is true.

[bborg 0]

(While Paul is away, I'll let myself speak for him based on his posts.)

I think what Paul meant was to ask you how your statements do not logically lead to a conclusion that your version of justice is independent of epistemology or morality.

I don't think he meant to state that your version leads there, but instead asked you to show how it doesn't.

I would be interested in such explanation myself.

If you believe my statements logically lead to conclusions you disagree with, you're free to demonstrate how and I can respond. However, Paul's post was a list of objections to statements I did not make, and so there was nothing for me to really respond to. I've tried over several pages to clarify my argument, because I think still there are some misunderstandings about what I've said. However, if you disagree, you need to present an argument (based on my words) because I'm not going to make it for you.

[bborg 0]

Is the patient dead on the operating table less dead because it was the result of honest error, rather than incompetence?

By the way, the placement of this example was not intended to imply it was relevant to justice. It was just an example I think helps to make the point about judgment and reality.

[Alon Tsin 0]

...

Truth is a status of a claim as corresponding to reality, not to its correspondence to a context of knowledge. I am not denying that a process is required to obtain knowledge, but that process is not what makes an idea true or just.

Truth is , indeed, a status of a claim corresponding to reality.

However, how do you verify a claim in correspondence with reality? How can a man know reality? If I tell you the sky is blue, how do you verify my claim? How can you know if I speak truth?

The answer is that man knows reality by getting information from his senses and using his mind to gain knowledge through various processes. Since man won't always have knowledge about everything, truth is related to the man's context of knowledge.

Man should always strive to know as much as he can in order to get the best verification he can - the most accurate truth. That is all anyone can do, and no more. He can aspire to be as faithful to reality as possible - and that's all he needs to live a good life.

I'll give an example:

When Newton made the laws of mechanics, he discovered the most accurate truth he could.

When Einstein formulated his theory of relativity, he discovered the most accurate truth he could.

I think we all agree about that

Einstein's theory is more in accordance with reality that Newton's. Therefore, you could say that Newton was wrong with his laws of mechanics (because of his assumptions or any other causes). However, when you say that, you say that in the context of 20-th century knowledge in physics.

We (as men living in the beginning of the 21-st century) can't know whether in 50 years some scientist will not prove that Einstein himself was wrong. It could happen, it may not happen, but for now, we know the truth as related to our knowledge of Einstein's theory and today's physics - and that's all we can (and should) do.

We can't know everything, and we can't know reality in any other way than the way I described - and that's why it is senseless to speak about the truth without the context of knowledge.

P.S : my claims are as true about the concept of Justice, as it is similar to the concept of Truth. Sorry about deviating from the topic of Justice.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

The idea that the concepts justice or truth are only reality - or that it exists regardless of any consciousness - is intrinsic. In other words - the idea that there is some kind of ultimate justice or ultimate truth that exist in reality without consciousness to create them is intrinsic, since it says that values are disconnected from mind and context.

I chose one quote on this thread that shows intrincism, although there are many more:

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.

Alon, please do not refer to old quotes of mine about this issue, but this elaborated explanation that explains my view. (The quote by me that you gave is not clear enough, it's inefficient to stick to that when I give a far more elaborated explanation in later posts):

The process of deciding if one is right or wrong about something can only be done in the context of his knowledge, but a man is either right or wrong about something regardless of anyone's context, since being right about something means that his idea matches reality.

First, would you disagree with the bolded formulation? And if you agree, do you think that "a man is either right or wrong about something regardless of anyone's context" is a wrong interpretation of the bolded part? I think this is where the problem may lie.

And so the quote continues:

If whatever years ago people thought the sun revolves around the earth, they were not right (even though their context was limited). The context I use to make this judgement is my own. Without a consciousness there is no way to hold knowledge whether or not something is true. However, this fact does not mean that something is not right/wrong unless there is a consciousness to judge it. It only means that it is possible to KNOW right/wrong if there is a consciousness to think about this thing. It doesn't change the fact that something is what it is, whether a consciousness exists to grasp it or not.

Also, notice the underlined part. It goes against what you claimed I was saying: "concepts justice or truth are only reality - or that it exists regardless of any consciousness". Your words are a very rough interpretation of my words, and a bad summary.