Reasons and raisins, Hypotheticals and hippopotamuses

[silverberry]

There is an objective truth (would be called 'facts', I guess), which can illicit different emotional responses, be perceived differently by different characters, or be the cause of several events that differ in magnitude, severity, and harm - ie, X caused harm in this situation and X caused good in this other situation are both things that can simultaneously.

There is no such thing as a single universal truth, ie, X is always good and will always have good effects on others.

What exactly counts as justice?

[npixelz]

Icy

I would say Justice is like karma. If someone gets punished but don't deserve it, that is not justice, but if they DO deserve it, that is justice.

[galled]

I would say there is such thing as universal truth. The interesting thing is they tend to be contradictory on the surface. For example, the only constant in the universe is change.

Justice is the idea that the punishment fits the crime.

[npixelz]

Icy

Yeah, so if you do something bad, justice is the punishment that fits. So like karma

[silverberry]

If the only thing constant is change, then does that constancy too change and disappear?
The idea that "things change" is an objective fact for me - change is how we measure time. But somewhere that doesn't have time won't change, and some changes happen on a time frame that's incomprehensible to us (counting hundred billions of years), so in one perspective (universe) it might as well not change.

Ngl I asked the justice question because I've been wondering if the idea of justice can be separated from punishment. The word shares roots with "just", so it should be about fairness, and fairness can exist without punishments, so why not justice, was my thought process xD

[npixelz]

Hmmmm

[silverberry]

That line of questioning is like a hydra. An answer just spawns more questions.

Can you separate justice from punishment? No (the consensus so far, I think)
Then what makes it different from vengeance? Fairness.
In what ways do we measure fairness and who decides what's fair? Law, perhaps.
Laws are made and enforced by people, who have biases, and can be threatened, coerced, etc. Is it still fair if the fairness isn't consistent or a given?

And etc @_@

[Cilencio Cerbera]

Fairness in punishment
What if the crimes committed of varying degree was given the same amount of harshness in punishment? Would it still be considered fair? :0

[npixelz]

Hmm... would the multiple crimes add up to a harsher punishment?

[silverberry]

Judging crimes by itself is... difficult.

Let's say we're judging theft.
Stealing food, medicine, or other things needed for survival would need a different judgment than stealing something like the latest makeup fad.
Harsher punishments for repetitive offense also wouldn't be fair for the person who's stealing for survival. They'll need to do it repetitively, bc u can't just eat once and be ok for the rest of ur days.

Justice separate from punishment would be making sure no one would be forced to commit crime out of desperation, I think

[Cilencio Cerbera]

^^^ eyyo yes

Sometimes people also focus too much on how to distribute a fair punishment, but overlook on how to 'stop' those punishments from being a necessity

Of course, that only applies for those stealing things needed for survival. Those that commit thievery on cosmetics and other non-essentials all while being able to 'afford' these items, perhaps they needed some special help. Those that couldn't afford em and are stealing em with the intention of selling it away, assuming it is to sustain their survival, perhaps could be offered similar punishments as those that stole essential items. Those that couldn't afford em, and are stealing em just because they want to look fancy, well, idk, I get the sentiment behind it but it's too much of a selfish act and seems reasonable to instill harsh punishment for it.

[npixelz]

Hmm, I see