Introduction
The concept of justice in history
Establishment of the principle of justice in law
Justice and law
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
Is it right? In my opinion, this question was asked by many generations, including ours. And yet, the answer to this question has not yet been found. Why? What is the difficulty in determining the relationship between these concepts?
There were a huge number of opinions about how justice should be understood in general and in its relation to law. But anyway general characteristics is extremely clear: justice is something proper and correct, something that law must correspond to in order to the best way regulate social relations. This is an integral component of the category of law, but by no means exhaustive. There is also an opposite opinion that justice has nothing to do with law due to its subjectivity. Therefore, legal norms are not always fair, and this does not always lead to worse consequences.
The problem of justice is not bypassed in any era. At the same time, on each historical stage this category has its own understanding, which is determined by the living conditions of people and their ideas about the world around them, the existing structure of society and the place of a person in this society. The concept of justice is associated with historically changing ideas about inalienable human rights.
The unconditional relationship between law and justice is confirmed by the very existence of a common basis for these words. "Justice" (justitia) comes from "right" (jus). V English language these 2 concepts are denoted by one word "justice", in principle, as in Polish - "sprawediwose".
“The concept of justice,” Aristotle noted in “Politics”, “is connected with ideas about the state, since law, which serves as a measure of justice, is the regulatory norm of political communication.” Socrates, for example, understood justice as “following wisdom, true knowledge, order of things, laws”, Plato - as an idea in the soul about highest good, Aristotle - as "spiritual virtue, which consists in giving everyone their due." He considered law "the criterion of justice", and Ulpian - "the art of goodness, equality and justice". Cicero gives his concept, closely linking justice with law, therefore, according to him, the ruler must own the basics of law, without knowledge of which no one can be fair. Moreover, justice is understood by Cicero as an eternal, unchanging and inalienable property of both nature in general and human nature. That is why, if the law is unjust and contrary to natural law, then it is no more law than the decisions made by robbers. At the same time, Cicero, in accordance with the views of his era, believed that slavery was just, because. bestows " the best people dominion over the weak, for their own benefit.
For centuries, the concept of justice has been included in the framework of the theological worldview. Justice is associated with public consciousness as a fixation of "God's order", an expression of the will of God and was intended to punish impious deeds (Thomas Aquinas, Anselm of Canterbury and St. Augustine).
Bacon argued that "justice is that which unites people and creates the foundations for law." Hobbes writes: “Justice, i.e. compliance with agreements is a rule of reason that forbids us to do anything that is harmful to our lives, from which it follows that justice is a natural law.
According to Kant, justice is a categorical imperative (a rule of conduct that exists due to the rational nature of man) and is considered by him as a blessing. Therefore, the punishment of the criminal is just, because, having expressed a desire to mistreat other people, the criminal, as a reasonable person, thereby proclaims how he should be treated.
Hegel argued that justice and injustice are relative concepts and justice can turn into injustice at any moment. According to Marx, justice is the expression of existing economic relations. Its content and status depend on existing method production, therefore, everything that does not correspond this method production is unfair.
From the point of view of the theory of utilitarianism, what brings the maximum amount of benefit is true. This approach seems to be quite justified and rational, but not always, because. it takes into account only a quantitative criterion of utility or happiness, so that even the lives of a few people can be sacrificed to the whims of many people for their pleasure, if the degree of their pleasure outweighs the suffering of a few.
The most complete concept of justice in modern times was developed by D. Rawls in his work "Theory of Justice", where justice is understood by him as honesty. Justice itself is based on two principles: the initial state of equality of people and the inadmissibility of obtaining benefits at the expense of others.
The Russian philosopher V. Solovyov defined justice as morality or altruism, i.e. the requirement not to offend anyone, to help everyone and to ensure the equality of people.
Thus, over time, the concept of law has changed significantly from justice given by God or nature, to an unjust restrictor of natural freedom.
Relationship between law and justice
There are 2 opposite points of view regarding the relationship between law and justice. One argues that justice is a non-legal category; moreover, it is not related to law and legal theory, but, on the contrary, “leads to a confusion of the categories of law and morality.” Justice is an evaluation category. What is right for some is often wrong for others. Moreover, each side is sincerely convinced of the truth, self-evidence and justice of only its own position. When it comes to justice, it would be wrong to rely on feelings when assessing what is happening. The truest approach is to evaluate phenomena in general without being involved in them. An outside observer is the most objective in this matter, since his own interests are not affected. It is necessary to realize that already initially justice contains elements of injustice, the proportion of which depends on the level of development of society. The principles of universal justice, which would be universal and suit absolutely everyone, are not only difficult to formulate, but simply impossible. Therefore, the concept of justice is always associated with a certain historical and cultural context. This position is not entirely new. In particular, it has always been characteristic of legal positivism. This theory does not ignore justice, but only considers that it is outside the law. Justice is a requirement of morality, not law. The categories of justice, proper, good and bad, precisely because they are quite arbitrary, subjective and changeable, of course, have the right to exist, but not in any way within the framework of the theory of law. Hans Kelsen, the creator of the “pure doctrine of law”, on this occasion did not tire of repeating that moral values, including justice, are relative and, for all their necessity, represent an unattainable ideal. This is a certain ideal of the life of society, and, consequently, of the state and law as its constituent parts. The more the principle of justice is reflected in law, the more “healthy” society and the state can be called. But it is impossible to reach full agreement on the issue of justice, as well as absolute justice in law. Therefore, the task of the state must be reduced at least to ensure that the laws are not only not clearly unjust, but their adoption would eliminate the maximum number of injustices.
Another theory says that the law must be just. In meaning, in any case, it goes back to justice, denotes the presence in social world legal principle and expresses its correctness, imperativeness and necessity. The goddess of justice Themis is a clear confirmation of this fact. The symbolic means used for this image: blindfolds, meaning an equal legal approach to everyone, scales, a sword, directly indicate such a category as justice. There can be only 2 options: either law is seen as the embodiment of justice, or people seek to bring it into line with it. Previously, in the domestic legal literature, law was defined as “normatively fixed justice”. Justice is the highest value in law. For example, V.S. Nersesyanets in his “Philosophy of Law” writes: “... justice is a category and characteristic of the law, and not extra-legal (not moral, moral, religious, etc.). Moreover, only right and just.” Although the law must be fair, it is impossible to agree that there is no justice apart from it. Such a statement is suitable only for ancient systems, where the law has not yet emerged as a special separate form of regulation of people's behavior. Justice can also be identified with the Vedic concept of “rita”, interpreted as a universal world law, to which the gods, nature, and man are subject, and a similar ancient Chinese idea of “tao” (path), and even a narrower Indian concept that applies only to humans. the concept of “dharma”, because they cover all existing forms of human behavior. But when there is a separation of various social regulators: religion, morality, law, custom, etc., then it is impossible to completely identify law with justice (although the coincidence of these two concepts is a fairly common occurrence in life). If law is formal and soulless, then justice, on the contrary, is always spiritualized and humane. Therefore, the following definition of law, proposed by the English jurist Blackstone: “Law is a norm of civil behavior prescribed supreme authority in the state, pointing out what is right and just, and forbidding what is wrong and unjust”, cannot but be subjected to criticism. Law cannot be defined only by the content of justice. That is why a legal act cannot always be called moral and it is quite possible, without violating the right, not to reckon with justice. After all, law is not always based on morality.
Justice is an internal property and quality of law, a legal category and characteristic. The law is essentially just. Therefore, the question of the justice or injustice of the law can be safely interpreted as a question of the legal or non-legal nature of the law, its compliance or inconsistency with the law.
Law is just because it embodies universally valid correctness, in other words, universal legitimacy. Law acts as an equally fair measure of regulation for all subjects of law. Everything that expresses the law corresponds to the law and follows the law justly. And on the other hand, to act in justice means to act lawfully, in accordance with the universal requirements of law. But by nature, everyone has their own justice.
Therefore, justice should not have any other form of expression, except legal, or the regulation of social relations through law will acquire a subjective character.
The denial of the legal nature of justice inevitably leads to the fact that some non-legal action begins to be passed off as justice. Thus, the universal meaning of justice is replaced by some arbitrary content, individual claims, separate and partial interests (individual, group, party, class, etc.). But this does not mean that the law should ignore various special interests and claims, on the contrary, they should find their proper recognition, satisfaction and protection in the law.
Legal justice is often opposed to the requirements of moral, ethical, political, religious and other "justice", assigning only the regulatory and protective function to the first, and leaving the observance of justice to other regulators. But this cannot be done, because,
Firstly, morality and religion themselves sometimes go far beyond justice, and secondly, it is legal justice that acts as a criterion for the legality or illegality of all other actions. Justice is an essential property of precisely law, and not morality, morality, religion, etc.
In areas regulated by law, i.e. in the legal (legal) space, law is the key instrument that regulates human life, and it is it that should ensure the achievement of a fair result in the legal space.
The word "justice" could often be heard in the slogans of all revolutions. And today this word as a slogan in the struggle for their rights has not lost its relevance. For the sake of it, they sacrifice well-being, personal happiness and even life. But in real life upholding justice requires not a feat, but daily work on the organization of society (or rather, the legal system) in the most correct way.
Despite the fact that it is difficult to avoid injustice, we must strive to ensure that the ratio of justice and injustice is in favor of the first, so that the level of fairness in the regulation of social relations, in the position of members of society is steadily growing, and the degree of injustice is also steadily declining. This is the main task of the state and society.
Based on the foregoing, it should be recognized that justice and injustice are one. Many legal norms already initially contain both of these elements and it is quite rare to find a law that can be called absolutely fair.
Thus, the establishment of justice can be attributed to the function of the law (Hobbes), since justice contributes to the regulation of relations, the elimination of general war. Hence the wording: "where there is no law, there is no justice." Although the law is considered to be just by its nature, but when a discrepancy arises between it and the "spirit", one must be guided by natural principles justice, because from them the law proceeds.
The legal system, in order to meet the requirement of justice, must give people equal rights and establish equal duties and equal responsibilities for the same behavior. Law in fact consolidates both equality and inequality of people, which exists objectively. At the same time, the law contains the requirements of universal equalization. Since a significant part of social relations is regulated by law, it is quite logical to conclude that in the legal space, as in real life, there is no absolute justice. Currently, it is widely believed that the main form of justice is precisely legal justice. Although legal justice is the exclusive sphere of the state, it is valid wherever the common good is to be protected. Since fair legislation is based on morality and takes into account the cultural traditions of the people, it is perceived by the people as something in relation to which there is not only a legal obligation to protect it, but also a moral duty. In addition to the existence of justice within the framework of the law, its existence is also permissible in areas not regulated by law or regulated initially unfairly. It is impossible in our time to regulate social relations only on the basis of moral precepts, which is associated with the complication of society. As a result, the need for positive law is ever increasing. If initially law consisted of a small number of legal norms, then later it grew to hundreds of thousands of legal norms in each country, began to be divided into branches, each with its own subject and method of regulation. Therefore, if at the birth of law, each person imagined how he should act in order to protect his rights, then today the situation is such that even a person with higher education incapable of exercising his rights by his own actions. He is not able to make a deal himself, nor to defend his rights in court. In order to do this, he is forced to turn to professionals who know and can interpret the law. This leads to the conclusion that it is not quite enough to enshrine fair norms in law, but it is necessary to create a fair mechanism for their implementation and protection. V modern law there is a tendency to direct legal activity in such a way that the result is, first of all, legal. The main law enforcer - the court is moving further and further from a fair result to a legal result. At the same time, it does not matter whether the law is fair or not, the main thing is that people's behavior should correspond to it. Its justice is already assumed from the outset, although these concepts are not identical. Those. since the law is inherently just, then its execution is a manifestation of justice. On this position, in its extreme manifestation, Nietzsche stood, arguing that “right and lack of rights exist only as derivatives of the establishment of the law. To talk about right and injustice in and of themselves is devoid of any meaning. The concept of justice here is replaced by formal justice. In other words, the result obtained corresponds to legal prescriptions, and not to real justice. In the modern legal space, formal justice has settled very firmly. This is fully justified by the fact that the issuance of judgments by the court in justice, and not on the basis of the law, would lead to massive violation of rights and anarchy due to the subjective nature of justice. Therefore, the appeal to justice in legal practice is possible only as the rarest exception, when law is powerless as a regulator.
Thus, although law has some obvious elements of injustice, in the near future positive law will still remain the main regulator in the legal space, because its presence eliminates an even greater injustice. It is the clarity of the criteria of behavior, characteristic of law, that helps to reduce injustice to a minimum.
Justice and law
Are laws always fair? It is obvious that by no means always, however, their binding and legal nature are visible. Moreover, one can often come to the conclusion that many laws that primarily perform a regulatory function (for example, the Rules traffic), it is generally absurd to evaluate from the point of view of their fairness.
It is quite natural that from fair law in its implementation, people expect a fair result. But in the course of applying a fair law, a fair result is not always guaranteed, because. the law can be misinterpreted, perverted or misapplied. And it is even more difficult to expect a fair result when the law itself does not initially have signs of universal justice. Law is the manifestation of a certain will in specific historical conditions, and therefore it is impossible to speak of its absolute justice, but only in relation to a particular society. The justification of the existence of a law by any good reason cannot yet testify to its just basis.
A lot of attention has always been paid to the question of the possibility of the existence of an unjust law and the obligation to comply with it. A fairly well-established point of view that even a very effective law should not exist if it is unjust. In this case, it does not matter that this law is beneficial for many, at the expense of infringing on the freedoms of other people.
Ideally, the legal order should be based on the moral order. Then law will be just as long as morality does not change. When law deviates from morality, a conflict between these two institutions is inevitable, which leads to ignoring law, disobedience to it, or the moral principles themselves begin to deform. In this case, the implementation of justice becomes very unsteady. In such a situation (confrontation between morality and unjust law), in most countries the choice is made in favor of fair natural law. That is why, in Lately the idea is put forward to put morality over law. The statement about the possibility of establishing the universal justice of the law is controversial. Indeed, although the very understanding of justice is undergoing constant changes, there are some basic principles justice that is not subject to change: "do not do to another what you do not want for yourself."
At the same time, it is obvious that when making decisions, justice may conflict with law. For example, from the standpoint of justice, every criminal must be punished for his deed. But, criminal law knows such institutions as limitation in committing a crime, amnesty and pardon, which allow to release the perpetrator from punishment in whole or in part. In this case, the obligation of punishment according to the principle of justice gives way to mercy. Although, from Nietzsche's point of view, in this case there is no mercy, but ordinary “herd cowardice”, caused by the fact that the very rules of behavior are determined by the useless crowd.
But nevertheless, recently they began to pay attention to the purpose of the adoption of the law in its evaluation, including its fairness. This is clearly seen at the level of the Supreme and Constitutional Courts of states, as well as the European Court of Human Rights. This is due to the fact that the issues considered there (on appeals) are precisely related to the restoration of human rights violated by law.
If we talk about the participants in the trial - lawyers, then they are generally alien to the ideals of justice and focus on obtaining a fair decision. There is nothing wrong or immoral among lawyers in exonerating a guilty person. This behavior is explained by the fact that the lawyer here acts only as a professional who is obliged to forget about his moral principles. The adoption of a legal decision does not depend on an objective picture of the event, but on which lawyer turns out to be procedurally more competent and more skillful.
Some consider quite good option to administer justice by the people themselves, or at least by their significantly larger representation than one professional judge. But this option, at the slightest consideration, is immediately rejected. Let us take the same jury trials, which were supposed to become the watchful eye of the people and a barrier to an unjust trial. In fact, it turned out that the law really receded into the background, but morality did not take its place. Decisions are made not on the basis of reason or moral principles or the demands of justice, but on the basis of emotions and the manipulation of human consciousness. Therefore, a people's or jury court cannot be called a place where justice reigns.
Orientation to the law avoids much greater evil, since the requirements of the law are much clearer and make it possible to avoid chaos with a greater degree of probability.
Based on the foregoing, in conclusion, we can draw some conclusions regarding the relationship between such concepts as law and justice.
Throughout history, justice has been understood in different ways. Now justice is perceived as a concept of what is due and right. Nevertheless, the definition of justice and its inner content did not become clearer. justice is basic concept for the right, but not vice versa. The theory (positivists) that justice gets its fixation only in law, in my opinion, cannot be called correct, although the essence of law is precisely in the regulation of relations in a fair way. Therefore, it is impossible to reduce law only to justice and vice versa, since these concepts do not coincide, but only partially intersect. In the legal space, justice is a category that law should be guided by and which is a criterion for its evaluation.
Due to the complication of social relations, it has become impossible to regulate them only by natural laws and morality, and therefore positive law has received a powerful development and today is the main regulator in the legal space. Regulators such as morality, religion began to be taken into account to a greater extent in the adoption of legal norms, and not in the course of their application. A complex system legal norms and their detailed development led to some predetermination of human behavior, but nevertheless, the achievement of a fair result has not become the norm.
In order to achieve a fair result, the law shows the need to be oriented towards the requirements of justice, and not just the requirement of legality. Therefore, having significantly moved away from the ideals of justice over the past centuries, law is moving back towards reliance on justice. This direction can only be supported, because, although it is unrealistic to create an ideal legal system, it is simply necessary to ensure the construction of law on the basis of eliminating the greatest number of injustices.
ratio right justice law
List of used literature
1. The concept of law = Concept of Law / T.L.A. Hart; under total ed. E.V. Afonasina, S.V. Moiseeva; per. from English. - St. Petersburg, 2007 - 301s.
2. To the problem of justice in law: an essay on the philosophy of law / Derbin A.P. - Mn., 2004 - 58s.
3. Justice and Development: World Development Report, [transl. from English. I.P. Gurova and others; ed. A.V. Bondarenko] - M., 2006 - 298s.
4. Political philosophy: from concepts to theories / Alekseeva T.A., textbook. allowance - M., 2007 - 399s.
5. Theory of law and state. Ed. prof. G.N. Manova. textbook for universities. - M., 1996. - 336s.
Justice is the scales in the hands of Themis, leaning towards the one who is right. The essay on the topic: “Justice” is intended to be written by high school students, because this is a difficult concept to understand. We can say that it is synonymous with the word "truth". Here's the truth, everyone has their own.
Law and morality
An essay-reasoning on the topic “Justice” is difficult to perform because the student does not always understand from what point of view to consider this concept. In general, justice is presented in two planes: in law and morality.
With the law, everything is clear: there are written rules that define the punishment, the measure and the limit of what is permitted. But with morality, the situation is much more complicated. Each person has his own set of values and principles according to which he acts in society. So the concept of justice is an exclusively individual idea. Therefore, an essay on the topic “Justice” should be written on the basis that this concept is a personal idea.
Work example
Even a mini-essay on the topic “What is justice?” You should write according to your own convictions. You can add arguments from the literature to the work, but then the text will already exceed the “mini” format. V in general terms such an example might look like this:
I think justice is a trait human nature. Only the strong in spirit can follow the laws of morality, protecting the weak and punishing the guilty. Justice is when everyone gets what they deserve.
It is said to be based on the principle of equality. Only where there are people of different classes, there is inequality and injustice. But this is rather a socio-economic moment that has nothing to do with morality. In fact, injustice is manifested in the fact that some people begin to put themselves above others, belittling their dignity.
Justice is expressed in relation to other people. Every self-sufficient person will follow the law of virtue. He knows exactly what is right and wrong, it is on such people that social harmony rests.
Theoretical base
Before embarking on an essay on the topic "Justice", you need to familiarize yourself with some secrets of simple writing. More precisely - with the structure of a good and complete text. It should include:
- First paragraph. Define a concept. Justice is associated with truth, conscience and respect for the individual. Of course, there are long and convoluted definitions in dictionaries, but they can be simplified to the above three truths.
- Second paragraph. Give your comment on the concept. Verbal devices such as "I think", "I think", etc. should be used.
- Third and fourth paragraphs. If possible, you can cite arguments from the literature. For example, recall Pushkin's The Captain's Daughter or the infamous Taras Bulba.
- Fifth paragraph. Summarize what you have written.
Truth in my life
As another example, you can imagine an essay on the topic “Justice in my life”:
It seems to me that justice is, first of all, an unspoken law that says that everyone should get what they deserve. This is the only definition I can agree with.
It seems to me that real justice is the measure of our life experience. The more a person has experienced, the more problems and difficulties he has solved, the more he understands life. His concept of justice will be broader.
When it comes to fairness in practical application, then it is worth remembering those who have health problems since birth. These problems teach him to show the will to live, about which nothing is known to most. healthy people. The award is fortitude, which even athletes can envy. A person acquires these qualities in justice when he refuses to give up even in the most difficult living conditions.
Your hard work will always find an equivalent reward. This is how justice manifests itself in my life. No matter how many times I tried to do something, relying on luck, the result turned out to be zero. Only after hard work can you get what you want. I think this is the best manifestation of justice that one has to face in life.
Finally, I would like to say the following: if a person measures everything with material goods, then his life will be unfair and boring. Only with experience comes the understanding that everything in life is in balance. It's just like on the scales of Themis, the bowl of which always leans in favor of the one who is right.
In the section on the question, you need an essay (mini essay) on the topic what is justice? Help. I looked on the Internet for this, there is none given by the author Janna Sheih the best answer is I think that justice is following nature and doing one's duty, and is the good of mankind. The initial principle of justice is the principle of equality. Injustice is manifested in inequality, when people endow themselves more than others with different values. Material and spiritual inequality is born. It seems that precisely because of this, all reasoning about justice and injustice is the lot of the weak, and not the strong and rich. And justice is expressed, first of all, in relations with other people. To be just means to do everything that the moral law requires. Therefore, each kind person, self-sufficient in soul and body, will not do injustice, he will simply fulfill all the requirements of the virtues. However, the awareness of justice includes both a sense of justice and a certain knowledge about what is due, about what is fair. Public life upholding justice. Fair is the same as proportional, that which is in harmony. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that faith in the triumph of justice is important point moral life of man.
What is justice and what is its nature? It is to these questions that have been troubling mankind since time immemorial that Ilyin offers us his answers.
Philosophical reasoning the author begins with a reflection on french revolution which proclaimed the idea of justice and equality. But as the author believes, justice, which is given to everyone, is a “prejudice”. The philosopher admits the idea that people are all equal. "Then justice could be found arithmetically and carried out mechanically."
However, people are not always equal by nature, otherwise everything around would be extremely simple and monotonous.
Comprehending and studying the hidden depths of the human soul, people should consider each individually.
Thus, according to Ivan Ilyin: “Justice is the art of inequality, which requires substantiated inequality ...”
We can consider this problem on the example of the work of the American feeder Daniel Keyes "Flowers for Algernon". Main character, having undergone an operation that makes him the owner of high intelligence, becomes somewhat selfish in relation to others. Until now, the man did not feel a fair attitude towards himself. .It seemed to him that people humiliated and did not appreciate him. Having become highly intelligent, he begins to treat others without fair, due attention.
Ultimately, Charlie Gordon returns to his original self.
The problem of justice is especially acutely felt at turning points in history. For example, during the entire existence of serfdom in our state, the peasants were treated without due justice: not as people, but as animals, and sometimes even worse. The peasants were considered to some extent slaves, because the landowner could control the fate of his worker.
So, these arguments convince us that true justice cannot be based on equality. In order to treat people fairly, we must take into account individual characteristics every personality.
Effective preparation for the exam (all subjects) - start preparing
Updated: 2017-08-27
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
Thus, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
Justice is a broad concept that everyone has their own, while opinions about it can change depending on mood, weather, season and other factors.
Before starting to write this essay, I had no idea how difficult it would be to give an unambiguous answer. For me, justice is when it's right. But what is RIGHT?
Everyone has their own truth: there is the truth of a sheep who wants to live and the truth of a she-wolf who has hungry cubs.
Understanding what justice is simple task. Historically, philosophers all over the world can give nothing but an abstract definition of the concept of justice.
Justice can be viewed on two levels:
- First, justice in the law. When there are written rules that define the conditions of punishment, measures and boundaries.
- Secondly, the concept of justice, as a set of values of each person.
And if in the first case we have a written document to which we can refer and back up the words with sound arguments. In the second case, any attempt to understand the justice of actions and deeds will lead to nothing but open questions, because each person has his own justice, i.e. any answer will be subjective.
In the words of Milton Friedman: “Justice and freedom are not the same thing. Fairness implies that someone will judge what is fair and what is not.” A certain pressure is seen here, the truth will be with the one who can defend his opinion or convince the opponent.
And what is justice for the man himself? How does his inner self determine how fair he is and how fair he is towards others?
I imagine that everyone has internal scales, they may have formed on the basis of family values, upbringing, social norms and ethics. This tool reacts to any actions occurring from the outside. And since people are selfish by nature, they try on any actions on themselves. And here everything will depend on which way the bowl will swing.
In the normal state, we do not analyze why we do certain actions, for what reason we react to stimuli in this way. Perhaps in this case the factor of "experience" plays?
The older a person becomes, the more patterns develop in his head, the faster he reacts to actions. This means that he does not understand justice consciously, rather more on an emotional level.
Why is it easier to help someone who is going through a similar experience to you; than one who does not evoke a response?
Injustice is felt more acutely, because it directly affects your EGO. If you are hurt emotionally, then you understand that you were treated unfairly.
It’s hard enough for me to perceive justice in relation to myself: I don’t want excessively exaggerated praise, but also giving the opportunity to underestimate myself is not for me.
Justice for me is something in between, when you can not cross the line “too much”.
Justice equalizes, to some extent, creates comfort. And when people are comfortable, there is no tension and the atmosphere is more relaxed.
Justice is determined by the measure of one's own experience. This is a subjective concept, more emotional than rational. The main thing is not to change your own principles, because only your opinion matters.