Justice question 1
No absolute justice ever existed in our world. Justice to one side indicates injustice to another side. There will always exist one discontent side in the judgement of justice. Taking murderer as an illustration. If a murderer was penniless and, he was sentenced to death, majority of observers will find it a justice judgement to the victim; however, think of the case that the victim is a thirty-year old young man with aspiring future. The loss of him, to his family, definitely outweighs death of the murderer. It is still injustice to his family because his future is so promising and, the fact that he is so young add injustice to the judgement. Consequently, there is only limited and partial justice in our society.
As for taxing the rich heavily to help paupers, this will definitely be seen as a partial justice by Aristotle. This is partial injustice in the sense that the rich earns more money than the poor because in general, they fight harder and longer than the poor everyday. Therefore, it is injustice to deprive the fruit of their labor to the benefit of the lazy ones. This is also partial injustice in the sense that despite reallocation of incomes, gap between the rich and the poor still appears.
Absolute justice is not very good for society; on the contrary, it can be the kiss of death.
I like your saying "No absolute justice ever existed in our world. Justice to one side indicates injustice to another side." But in the second part it is unfair to tax rich people to help paupers. Some people live in a poor and miserable life not because they are lazy. It may because they do not have the opportunities like the rich people.
回复删除However since rich people have more privileges and enjoy more social welfare than the poor people, it is their responsibilities to be charged more taxes than common people.
Different people have different opinions. Although I disagree what you said, I find your words very strong and convincing. The way you express your thought is very good.
回复删除楼上说的好！
删除顶楼上！
删除你没看就disagree个毛
删除I like your article in general, but still disagree with the part about the victim. The value of a life can never be appropriately assessed. So I don't think it make sense that it is because the victim is young with a promising future that the death of the murderer is still not enough. Similar things happened when both a silver-collared Shanghai citizen and a countryside peasant died in the same accident. The citizen's family got 3 time more compensation fee than the family of the peasant did. That is controversial because after all they are two same lives but are valued differently.
回复删除Parker, good job with your response to this discussion post on justice. I agree with you that, in our attempts to enforce justice, at least one party will always be unhappy with the decisions that are made and feel them to be unjust. In the instance you gave of the murderer, for example, if the victim was young and had an extremely promising future before him, the victim's friends and family may still not feel that sentencing the murderer to life in jail or giving him the death penalty is justice. Punishing the murderer fails to bring the victim back to life. If the state were to take the murderer's life in return for the murderer taking the victim's life, some parties would be satisfied with this, but others would still be left unsatisfied. It seems we will always be speaking of a partial and limited sense of justice, since it is virtually impossible to appease everyone and appeal to everyone's different sense of justice, since justice is such an abstract concept. As you stated, what one person considers to be just, another person considers to be unjust.
回复删除