Society consists of its people, therefore it should be sustained by their values and virtues. Whereas it seems we are often more concerned about politics than our self-building, claiming our voice in any particular case - no matter if we have or have not enough knowledge in it.
Justice starts with treating ourselves well, improving our inner-view. being humble and, above all, listening. Instead of being extremely judgemental and impatient, we may have a deep knowledge of everyone of our acts, what, in the matter of fact, is our most important duty in life. As the great writer García Marquez said once: "A man only has the right to look down at another when he helps him to lift himself up." Being just is, at the end, no more than an equal treatment towards others, as long as it based on a gentle and honest behaviour towards ourselves.
The Republic hangs by one frayed thread…that we are all equal before the law. We see evidence all around us that Justice in America is neither blind nor balanced. Two-tier Justice is de rigueur in DC.
Impartiality is not the natural human state. Prejudging & self-interest were an evolutionary advantage. They are in our DNA.
The US Constitution is the counterforce.
Justice as a legal construct is the matter at hand therefore and Blasey v. Kavanaugh is the subtext.
Rage without reason is mob rule at best. Or as Sen. Collins put it, “[W]hen passions are most inflamed… fairness is most in jeopardy.”
With 140 characters max, 30-second clips & short attention spans, rage-without-reason women are reduced to harridans. Didn't you hear them in the Senate gallery?
Blasey v Kavanaugh is not about victims of sexual abuse, not about empowering women, not about getting justice for Ford, not even about closure. It is about raw power & the Left’s attempt to seize it by exploiting all victims, all women, all men, in order to destroy one particular man in a Hail Mary pass to seize SCOTUS & the presidency.
Without due process and the presumption of innocence, we are all guilty, all accusations against us are true, & America sinks into the dark world of Torquemada & Stalin….
1
As long as 1 didn't try to deliberately hurt others 1 has the right to b left alone.That is 1 way of describing a person's right and a justice system enforces that and there is a similar equivalent of that in the context of relation between Nations or various peoples or Ethnic Gps.But Ideologues, especially the extreme ones,impose a perverted version.The Nazi's Chief Justice,I believe it was Earnst Yaning, whose character so convincingly portrayed at Judgment at Nuremberg by BL,provided a legal cover to the most heinous crime committed by 1 Gp of people against people of other Ethnicity,hence abusing a great legal mind and turn oneself a co-criminal.In the last Sup C.hearing the nominee has only to restrict himself to proving his innocence of the alleged offense and persuading the Sens about his suitability to the Job.By insisting that is a Clintonian plot the person is projecting himself as a hard line Conserv ideologue who believes that 1 time Clinton supporters shouldn't b trusted just as those who pressed that belonging to a certain Ethnicity is a crime worthy of receiving a death penalty.Besides, the one opposite of true justice is Mob attack.In several developing Nations severely incompetent politicians incite people of 1ethnicity to indiscriminately target members of other Ethnicity, their properties and faith places (like Churches or Synagogues).To understand the meaning of true Justice we shouldn't just misuse the concept of J. but the concept of Antithesis of J..TMd
For those of us who find ourselves living and working in the Platonic tradition -- including Aristotle, one of the most brilliant -- , justice is a virtue of supreme importance. Of course it means far more than the stuff of legislatures, police departments and law courts. Living with awareness of the competing drives, inclinations, tendencies, enthusiasms, aversions, appetites, loves and hates of our souls, and with the recurring intention to follow a fair course of harmony amidst our inner tumult, becomes a precious and irreplaceable exercise.
The number of commenters who doubt the practicality of Paul Bloomfield's appeal should strike us as cynical, and lacking perhaps in another virtue that figures as a close ally of justice: courage. A moral instruction that Plato attributes to Socrates is that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit it; such is his sense of the complete dependence of our happiness on the virtue of justice. But it takes courage to maintain an attitude based on this doctrine. Socrates did much better than most of us manage, which is why he is counted as a hero.
1
“The other way to fail justice is by judging ourselves to be less worthy than we truly are.
This is sadly common among oppressed people, but it also arises among the affluent and powerful under the guise of the “impostor syndrome.”
————
I have certainly heard of the “impostor syndrome,” most commonly in reference to those that come from suboptimal origins of some sort & do not have high expectations for themselves, have relatively low self-esteem, etc & then feel like “impostors” when they obtain even relatively modest measure of success.
I wonder how many wealthy & powerful individuals, especially those raised to believe they are superior, worthy, capable of great success, etc. end up truly suffering from “Impostor Syndrome”
1
Justice means fairness and accountability.
But man, at his core, is fundamentally an unjust creature. Self-absorbed, self-serving and cruel.
There is no speaking truth (fairness) to power when it counts and what passes as critical dialogue on these pages is solid proof. Power is necessarily self-protective and selective. In other words: It will only let us yap when its interests are secure.
I love this piece, nevertheless, and all the decency it embodies.
3
"Leadership without an inner moral compass reliably pointing toward justice inevitably ends in the abuse of power"
as for justice, it can be applied to international politics too, where the United States has wielded the most powerful leadership ever over the world.
must I not call it an abuse of power when the most powerful nation uses the international law and institutions arbitrarily and self-regardingly, to force other countries to abide by its own sovereignty or hegemony?
2
Although Mr. Bloomfield is right that "It’s a staple of common sense that we don’t let judges try their own cases," the law doesn't follow common sense. For instance, under ERISA--a law that has governed almost all private employer pensions, retirement benefits, and health plans since 1974--judges do try their own cases.
Congress wrote ERISA to help workers. One Senator proclaimed: "There can be no doubt that this is a major contribution to a more secure future for men and women who have worked hard all their lives."
Not quite. In 1989, in the case of Firestone v Bruch, the Supreme Court rewrote ERISA with an offhand remark.
In that Firestone case, the Supreme Court held that employer pension, disability, or health insurance plans could grant themselves the right to be judges in their own cases.
Of course, insurers nationwide did just that, laughing all the way to the bank.
The result: since 1989, tens if not hundreds of thousands of disabled Americans have been deprived of the right to a fair trial. Over 20 states have now outlawed the Jim Crow Firestone tactic of allowing insurers to be their own judges. Scholars and judges deride Firestone. But the conservative Supreme Court won't undo its Firestone travesty (or ten other unjust ways it has rewritten ERISA).
There's a good reason that, as Mr. Bloomfield writes, "It’s a staple of common sense that we don’t let judges try their own cases." Too bad it's not also the law.
Morality and justice are no longer on speaking terms.
US justice in 2018 means the one who wins has the most $$$$$ to out lawyer or drive the other into B'rupcy on some fabricated charges.
Crumbling pillars.
2
When corporations become people and votes are not counted - the supreme court is not concerned with justice,
6
Much law, little justice.
To expect justice from the unprincipled is pointless.
1
The first week of the first year of law school, we were told that in our adversarial legal system, ‘justice is who wins.’
Howzabout dem apples?
4
You lose your argument at the start with your instance on using the singular "justice".
There are many justices in this country, and some are perennially deemed more important than others.
For example,. you name courtroom judges as the apotheosis of justice. Not.
Courtroom judges are supposedly bound by law, law which increasingly favors the wealthy the sly and the well-connected.
A defendant may have been duped into signing a contract, making an agreement, but if he signed it that will weigh against his chances of receiving relief. That, sadly, is the law. But its not justice.
I may lie to neighbor to trick him out of his money, but if Wells Fargo, say, lies to me they will not pay anything like the same penalty as an institution and, unless there is pressure from a person considered important, no individual will be held accountable.
Justice is a spirit, a sense, as much as it is the implementation of a single operational concept.
A spirit very nearly loist in today's America. Sanctifying judges, genuflecting before the law, is a very poor way to begin a restoration.
4
I don't think that we can understand justice by looking at it as an individual virtue. It is strongly connected to collective action and expectations. It is part of a complex feedback between the administration of justice, our collective perception of injustice, and our adherence to rules of justice. If we perceive systemic injustice, over time we are less likely to adhere to the rules ourselves. It probably can reach a tipping point where enough people have lost trust in the system that it collapses from a national system into a warlord system or tribal system.
1
The author could have just said he believes justice is the angel. Lady Justice would say that is proper as a prayer. Montesquieu is dead, but his books are still in print.
I'm surprised that so many of the people commenting see justice as situational. This is part of what got us into this mess. Republicans think it's just to do anything they want to as long as they get what they want. Democrats have been guilty of the same attitudes. Trump thinks it 's just for him to pardon himself if the Mueller investigation doesn't go the way he wants. The 1% believe that it's just that they pay little to nothing in taxes and hoard the wealth of the country and are Okay with the suffering this causes for other people. The poor can believe it's just to get back at the 1% and try to get some wealth for themselves through crime. This is what happens in my opinion when justice becomes situational. If you make justice situational you can justify anything you do. In the end justice is not situational, our belief in it is situational and justice is corrupted.
It usually involves truth; not propaganda from mockingbirds pretending to be a free press.
Bloomfield is mainly talking about evaluation, which judging involves. But judging is standardly done with interest in whether or not remediation is needed.
It's not valid to say; “...if we are to gain self-knowledge,...We must judge ourselves to know ourselves.” Rather, we must UNDERSTAND and evaluate ourselves.
Where Bloomfield says “judging,” I would say “evaluating.”
Evaluation is based in valuing. We apply values to situations, resulting in evaluations. VALUATION “functions both in our epistemology, or how we form and justify our beliefs”; justice is a supplementary value in gaining and sustaining good.
In a context of jurisprudence, judging is corrective for civil procedure and correctional in final decision. Justice is something to be gained or received. It’s remediative. “[S]elf-regarding justice” would be self-corrective in a therapeutic sense. But self-evaluation is likely about grounding preferences or changing aims of action.
All self-questioning leads to self-evaluation, but usually not self-judgement. The virtue of self-questioning is openness to changing aims or correcting oneself.
Bloomfield is misleading to avow that “We need leaders motivated by a love of justice.” We need leaders motivated by great social values, which includes gaining justice when rightly called for. But being motivated by justice is for judges in jurisprudence.
I agree, though, that “all virtues are ideals....”
But I'm not allowed enough space here to say much more.
1
Justice requires collective support and participation. If we see people "getting away with murder" we all begin to lose trust in the institutions of justice. If the system of justice does not prevent exploitation, then exploitation becomes rampant and people turn their backs on common decency.
When authorities randomly lie and push conspiracy theories then the public is deprived of the means to understand the social and political reality. With a distorted perception of reality, the likelihood of corruption and injustice are magnified. This is fatally corrosive to the system.
The justice of our individual actions is strongly connected to our expectations of how the justice system is working. When we see our leaders act like bullies and get their way by intimidating and brushing off others, each one of us will be more tempted to act selfishly, in the view that doing what is morally right is only for suckers.
Denying the truth about widespread sexual harassment of women and about the reality of global warming is a way of hollowing out justice from within. What you have left is a "whited sepulchre" - a system that calls itself "justice" but is rotten with corruption.
2
Dear Professor Bloomfield,
As Prime Minister Billy Hughes (he of the most woeful countenance) once said:
"When painting my portrait, I don't want justice - I want mercy."
Indeed. An ounce of mercy is worth an ocean of justice.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
2
"The opposite of poverty is not wealth. The opposite of poverty is justice." -- Bryan Stevenson
5
We are struggling with what justice really means in the U.S. at this time. "Why do the wicked prosper?" It may be the Republican leadership thought they gained the windfall with Kavanaugh, but will reap the whirlwind because it was done so unjustly. If Kavanaugh and crew wanted to be seen as above reproach and just, he(they) should have called for a thorough investigation. With our unjust President saying he was found innocent, when he clearly was NOT, it just adds fuel to the fire. IT is hard to see him as a justice after his belligerent, brutish behavior towards senators when asked questions. In fact, he acted more in line with the accusers' testimony, and this was without alcohol I presume. How he should be expected to be respectful towards other justices in deliberating is beyond me, as he clearly wasn't respectful of senators. As he said his mother said was a true test in judging cases is what makes the most common sense. What makes sense to everyone but those who have been raised similarly, is that these things did happen when he was young and he continues to think he is entitled to not be held accountable because after all, he worked hard. His parents bear some responsibility for this, in that he, obviously, was never held accountable for anything growing up, so he thinks it is acceptable to treat people with such disregard and lack of respect. He is NOT alone in this as the Republican leadership, including their president showed their true colors
4
Justice depends on truth plus a semblance of equality under the law. Our majority in the congress, White House and Supreme Court has turned its back on equality and truth. The consequences span the spectrum of pre-schoolers at the border to flooding around the world. Trump is literally a living Hell.
a really fine piece. it reminded me, a social worker. of my very first Family Court appearance before Judge Edith Miller. I dont honestly remember the case or the outcome except that it was not a good one. Commenting to Judge Miller that things didnt seem to go well, her reply has followed me for 45 years: "You need to understand that there is no Justice, there is only the law".
1
How much progress can we make in discussing the abstract ideals of justice without working towards a practical understanding of that can bridge the divisions of our nation?
Mr. Bloomfield claims that "...all abuses of power involve an unjust willingness to greedily arrogate more than one’s due." This can only be part of the story. Great abuses of power often stem from our failure to agree how much "one's due" amounts to in the first place. Disagreement on such a fundamental question will inevitably lead to outcomes that vary in how just or unjust people will perceive them to be.
As Judge Learned Hand remarked, "The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." It is precisely when we are most convinced of our own righteousness that we are most vulnerable to committing abuses of power.
2
This is a piece about the 'ideal' of justice and how it requires a sober and fair judgment of ourselves in order to make a sober and fair judgment of others. It is a template for evaluating how justice is either served or not served in reality.
Justice does not necessarily equal 'obeying the law' or following precedent. There have been laws and precedents throughout history that have been changed or discarded as human beings strive towards justice for ALL. And there have been many innocent people who have been condemned under laws bent by the rich and powerful to protect their own interests. One in particular comes to mind : Jesus of Nazareth.
3
Imagine a world in which this fine essay by Professor Bloomfield was read widely and taken into lunch rooms and coffee shops for active discussion. What a different society that would be. It’s possible too. Nothing in this essay is beyond the reach of the most ordinary of us. It would be discussion of the very core of our values and and beliefs and it would force us to audit what we think we are and what we are actually. Brilliant!
2
What is the concept of "justice" among humans?
Modern science demonstrates the natural world has no justice, that life forms feed off each other, that at best we can speak of cycles or harmonizations or the like in nature but no real justice as obviously some animals are predators and others prey.
Humans of course are distinguished from the other species by higher intelligence and consciousness, but this higher intelligence and consciousness has a price: The species as a whole becomes more aware of its weakness in the face of nature and with respect to itself, and the individual members of society differ in their likelihood to be predators or prey in relationship to each other and nature.
Probably the humans more likely to be predatory and strong are least likely to worry about concepts such as justice because they can live very roughly indeed, are able to in fact live in environments approximating if not actually raw nature. The weaker humans for whatever reason are probably the most likely to form concepts of justice because it is in their interest to rectify nature and the human, to redress perceived imbalances in their direction.
Which means that the more weak the human race becomes or individual members of the race the more the cry for justice occurs, the more the attempt to redress "wrong". But the stronger the race or individual members become the less probably the concept of justice appears at all and we have instead a "heightened" state of raw nature.
I find this point of view, view of life and humanity extremely repugnant. There is more truth to it if you replace the positive word ‘strong’ with the more truthful word callous, or self serving, and the word weakness with compassion or empathy. To see balancing your appetites against another’s needs as weak is to shred the fabric of love, connectedness, joy, awe and peace that is the reason for living. To have no need for these, only your own appetite, is to be dead already. To worship power over others is a dark and useless existence.
1
This is a, profound, wonderful essay. Thank you, Professor!
Let me add that pursuing justice can be a great motivator in life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you point out, life is unsafe. So, instead of complaining and wanting to give up, we might seek some justice for others, too.
In the old Testament Bible (Torah), in Deuteronomy 16.20:
"Justice, justice shall you follow, that you may live and inherit the land, which the Lord G-d gives you."
(I met a man in a supermarket, whose first name is "Justice."
He works in a supermarket in Rochester, NY, where I live.
I will share this with him and I imagine he will appreciate it.)
1
A very timely piece. I find that justice is not perfect a truth, and that we must strive to be as fair and just as we can be inspiring.
1
Thank you Professor Bloomfield, for expressing so well, and in such depth, why many of us we feel as we do about the Kavanaugh debacle. Ironically, the confirmation process gave everyone a real insight into the character of nominee but with the wrong outcome. You would hold the justices and those who select the to a high ethical standard, and so should we all. Let’s not stop doing that!
2
I have been trained in the legal system which is not a justice system. In the past several years, I have not been able to say the pledge of allegiance because the words "liberty and justice for all" were just not happening no matter that we had talked and worked on it for decades...I could and can no longer justify these words even as aspirational.
3
Justice should be for all. We have come a long way in our democracy to insure that. Black men no longer go to jail on the word of a white women who has no evidence. Innocent until proven guilty must stand despite what the #metoo people say. Truth, Justice and the American Way!
1
Black men still go to jail on the word of a white woman or white man. Remember the Starbucks fiasco? Two black men were arrested at the request of a white, female employee without facts being obtained. Things only changed when people created a ruckus over what happened.
2
Justice as a personal virtue and justice as a social virtue can look very different.
7
This article misses the first point of justice -- that it is actually administered. Historically, people generally agree on what is fair and what is (though this evolves over time and differently in different cultures), but the vast number of injustices are done because injustices are committed and those responsible for administering justice simply turn their heads and look the other way.
Kavanaugh lied and perjured himself, and is a likely sexual abuser 35 years ago (though he seems to have cleaned his act up since then.) The Republican majority in the Senate simply looked the other way when confronted with these transgressions and violation of the the rules of confirmation of Judges.
James Clapper lied to Congress about the NSA snooping on all Americans' emails. Congress did nothing. Bush led us into an aggressive war against Iraq, illegal according to all international laws. His administration lied to the American people about the likelihood of Iraq having WMDs. Nothing happen for these lies.
The first principle of Justice is that some credible body can rule on it and their ruling cannot be overruled by oligarchs and strong men.
5
I have just finished reading an op-ed that is, clearly with the author's intent [my opinion, just a feeling], exactly as opaque as necessary to the task of not appearing to make a big ol' pile of judgments. A masterpiece of obliqueness without being so oblique that even the dimmest partisan could miss the point. Well done, professor!
3
Fact check: Capitol Police are dressed in all blue.
A white shirt means that you are looking at the Supreme Court police.
Like every other virtue, justice is not absolute. There is no universal justice, simply because the universe does not care for humanity one way or the other. The notion of justice is culturally contstructed, and therefore culturally contingent. In simpler words, your concept of justice depends on what kind of society you want to live in. Is it just to kill a person for being rich? Robespierre would say yes. Is it just to kill a person for being educated? Pol Pot would say yes. Is it just to kill a person for being Jewish? Hitler would say yes. All these men were utopians, trying to create a perfect society according to their vision. In the US, most people (at least so far) want to live in a society with maximum individual freedom, both economic and personal, combined with reasonable security. Justice in such a society can never be perfect but it can be used to protect a majority from lawlessness and chaos, while upholding, to a certain extent, individual rights. This is good enough for me.
It is necessary to discuss our ideals such as the concept of justice, repeatedly, to assess if our stated intentions are congruent with our actions.
Honest self reflection can be aided through therapy yet is not possible for people who believe they are perfect and have no need to change their cruelty, selfishness or greed.
3
Doing justice is not one thing. What is just depends on what the question is and what your view of the law may be. Trial court judges generally deal with straightforward legal questions and mostly adjudicate straightforward facts. Appellate judges deal with the intricacies of the law as shaded by their political views.
Trial court judges do justice by rendering even-handed decisions based on the facts. Appellate judges and Supreme Court justices are guided by legal questions that they decide within a framework that that is political and ideological.
Those who decide the most lofty of questions face the most difficult challenges and their decisions come in for much more criticism. The law is often in the eye of the beholder. The notion of objective decisions apart from politics is pretty much a nonexistent ideal.
1
I like how this philosophy is based on an individual's ability to learn to reason and to develop self-honesty and humility to counter personal fallibility, and how it is possible to achieve this without resorting to divine revelation or handed down truths from some other outside authority.
One of the dangers I see today is how many people defer to authority even over matters that are obviously untrue: Trump's inauguration crowd size, climate change denial, the literal interpretation of the Bible, and (worse) the literal interpretation of the constitution as a document of divine revelation rather than a product of compromise based on the situational realities of the time.
There seems to be a return to the divine right of kings regarding Trump (God chose him over Hillary) and Kavanaugh (born for the Supreme Court).
Democracy really does seem to depend on a sizable portion of the population being able to reason and to temper the impulse to win at all costs. We may see a return to democracy once the costs are recognized as being too high even for the winning side. That is what happened with World War II. Unfortunately, we're in for some bad times until then.
8
I think the author is really seeking Truth. Justice is rough, exists only in the eye of the beholder, and by definition must comply with the law, however unfair it is. A judge in our Constitution must obey the law and consequently may or may not deliver justice per the author’s definition. Consequently while a good judge may deliver justice per author’s definition in some cases, no guarantee exists that he will always happen do it.
If there were any justice, Hillary would be President.
1
Ask Lindsey, Mitch, Chuck, Orrin, Susan and to that gang Justice means JUST US.
With that crew running the show Justice is JUST THEM and that is that.
When I consider those who cheat or abuse power, and think they have won, I am forced to accept that they are in fact playing a different game. They have come to understand that power is not granted to those who play by the rules of meritocracy, but instead by those who will lie, cheat, steal, and kill to get what they want. And only a select few are actually playing the real game, which doesn't include justice.
3
All of this handwringing in the wake of the Kavanaugh fiasco is both misplaced and tedious. Why do liberals cry foul every time they lose an election or nomination contest? Is there something in the constitution that indicates that Democrats are preordained as the ruling class? When normal people turn on their TVs and see mobs running all over the landscape, screaming in peoples faces, they are understandably repulsed.
Personally, I hope the Democratic Party remains held hostage to the likes of Linda Sarsour. Normal folks want no part of that sort of radicalism.
3
I guess you didn't read the article.
Kavanaugh held himself up as someone incapable of self reflection. The ability to apply justice meritoriously comes from this discipline.
It's not liberals whining, it's normal people understanding that character is an essential part of a person's ability to rule on matters of law. If you watched Kavanaugh's testimony and came away impressed, I have absolutely no idea what to say to you.
2
Republicans did the exact same thing when they were out of power. Self righteousness does not change reality.
Justice is simply about meeting a standard or norm. When you justify a block of text to the left, all the left ends of every row of letters will line up. If the standard in basketball is no traveling then anyone who carries the ball without dribbling deserves a penalty and when that happens that is justice within that context. Outside that context traveling would be meaningless. If we try to derive some concept of "general justice" without respect to local norms, all we can really arrive at is consistency of norms, avoidance of double standards.
1
About that "life is not fair". We say that quite a bit without perhaps wondering why it is so. Most of life, excluding humans, seems to be fair. The rules of evolution are the same for every form of life except humanity. Humanity has managed to stack the deck to become the unfairest form of life on the planet. We are the only ones who manipulate the environment to such an extent that all others forms of life can be made to lose wherever they encounter our sphere of influence. Inside that sphere, we manage to manipulate our own societal environment to make it unfair as well. Life, in the larger sense, is fair. It's a rude awakening for many folks when they first encounter the great unfiltered outdoors which doesn't give a damn WHAT you think - there the rules are the same for everyone and remarkably just. What I see is a very conscious decision to structure society in the least fair way possible with maximum advantage to a very small group at what we choose to call "the top". The L curve, showing the massive accumulation of wealth to the top 1% and then even the top percent of that is evidence. The dismantling of environmental protections, the avoidance of climate change both lose to short term economic advantage. The rule of law, free and fair elections lose to the power exerted by those with that economic advantage. I am very afraid that the pendulum has swung so far to cement the privileged class in place that nothing short of violent revolution would swing it back.
7
See Socrates' various conversations on this topic in Book 1 of the Republic. For Polemarchus, justice is doing well by one's friends and harm to one's enemies, arguably a Trumpian view, and one that may be supported by Kavanaugh et al. This is refuted by Socrates in various ways, including the principle of human nature that one may be mistaken in who one's friends and enemies actually are. Thrasymachus, on the other hand, argues that justice is defined by whatever the strong can inflict on the weak, another view congenial to Trumpism and a conservative court. Socrates responds to this with a complex, nuanced argument from analogy, involving discussion of the relationship of justice to the soul and the role of the soul in human life - this being entirely beyond the range of Trump and his adherents.
5
Thanks for this.
As to the nation bearing witness to self-regarding justice in the Kavanaugh hearings, one early question many of us had that seemed to get lost as the public debates wore on was why did he not himself insist on a full and fair impartial investigation and on bringing Mark Judge before the committee to be cross-examined under oath.
Also, agreed that how we form and justify our beliefs implicates fairness and justice.
How we attempt to convince others is part of practical morality. Cleverly assuming what one purports to prove, often by playing around with broad ill-defined terms to purportedly establish a fact or proposition, seems unfair and unjust to me. So does assigning a trait to a narrowly defined group and then shifting to apply the trait to a more broadly defined group. (See Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic today for a good riff on this sort of thing.)
Thanks also for this: “As recklessness and cowardice are opposing vices of courage, arrogance and servility are opposing vices of justice.” Almost 30 years ago I heard someone say we often fail to cultivate a quality within ourselves (like good humor) because we dislike its shadow (like facetiousness). Being on the lookout for whether one has been caught by one or the other of a quality’s opposing vices also seems like practical and useful advice to me.
2
All Aristotle’s pronouncements on justice proceed under the assumption that it is difficult (kalepos) for a self-interested animal like a human being to bind itself to a principle (logos). So why do we do it? Aristotle does not have much to say on this ultimate question (who can blame him?) beyond the usual commonplaces about “human nature.” (It is our nature to seek out what is difficult: chew on that.) What comes through in all Aristotle’s writings on this question and others concerning human behavior is humility, forbearance and astonishment. Self-interested parties on ALL sides of the present justice wars could do with a little of the same humility, in my humble opinion.
As long as big money can buy our congressional representatives who then ramrod the most unpopular and most partisan judge in US history onto a LIFETIME position on the Supreme Court, there will be no real "justice".
5
This thoughtful, reasonable, and knowledgeable editorial is an appropriately scathing, top-to-bottom condemnation of the recent Republican addition to the Supreme Court, and the administration and party that nominated him.
6
All Aristotle’s pronouncements on justice proceed under the assumption that it is difficult (kalepos) for a self-interested animal like a human being to bind itself to a principle (logos). So why do we do it? Aristotle does not have much to say on this ultimate question (who can blame him?) beyond the usual commonplaces about “human nature.” (It is our nature to seek out what is difficult: chew on that.) What comes through in all Aristotle’s writings on this question and others concerning human behavior is humility, forbearance and astonishment.
1
This is a great esoteric description of justice, but I would like to put it in simpler terms. Justice is when people get what they deserve...When the cheater is caught and punished... the afflicted are reimbursed for their mistreatment and the oppressor punished and when opportunity is afforded to all to live a just and good life.
It is hard sometimes to understand injustice, but it usually comes from excessive ignorance and ego. Defining what is true is sometimes difficult, but often painfully evident as with current Republican politicians. It is easy for these politicians to stick their collective heads in the sand and follow the lead of Mr. Trump. He is the most unjust President we have ever had. He and his overly wealthy cohorts have perverted the American idea of democracy from his election until today. They have grown fatter and richer while taking from those who need help. They have perverted the issues that are vital to our populace and have ignored the needs of our people. That is injustice...the lack of justice. Their problem is, to repeat Kavanaugh’s phrase, “What goes around, comes around.” Even the strongest Trump backer will eventually realize the charade of Trump and the Republicans and then there will come a reckoning. It will start this November. It is the job of all of us to try to bring back justice into our lives and government. VOTE!!! I
2
One thing is for certain, A First Lady from Slovenia, where women aren't exactly treated stellar, should not be commenting on #MeToo Movement. Her voice in this matter is irrelevant, obsolete, and cruel.
2
We have to stop searching for justice during this time in America because it simply doesn't exist.
Instead, we must focus on how to get back to basics. Vote out the hate filled power mongers and start over.
Once we have honest people running our country, we will find our way back to justice.
21
@Sarah
If we don't maintain clarity about what Justice is, the dishonest people will have won. And may keep winning, by claiming their dishonesty is "actual honesty," whereas our concerns are merely "anarchy by a mob."
The truly chilling aspect of this epic battle as it gets closer and closer to its dénouement is that so many strangely insistent people -- such as Jeff Flake -- stepped forward to defend the indefensible.
If voters don't believe Justice is on the agenda, they will have less motivation to turn out and vote.
1
Excellent response and right on-point. Our nation is in serious crisis at the moment and justice seems elusive, but once the hatred and greed and injustice has been voted out, we will be restored to the more perfect union our founding fathers imagined.
@Sarah We have to keep searching for justice in America as never before, first and foremost by joining together to vote the scoundrels out. Once we have found our way back to justice, we will have honest people running our country.
One of the themes in The Merchant of Venice is justice tempered by mercy . In this sense private conscience merges with social equity and fairness .
2
"Though justice be thy plea, consider this:
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation. We do pray for mercy,
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy."
It would have been merciful if Kavanaugh withdrew. As it is, once justice is served, he will have to resign.
5
@Occupy Government
Shakespeare. Thank you--
@Occupy Government: Arguably, it would have been merciful if Dr. Blasey had questioned whether she knew what that 17-year-old intended to do, and the wisdom of holding a 53-year-old responsible for the mistake of a 17-year-old. As it was, she sought revenge.
An excellent means of achieving self-justice is the old-fashioned Catholic practice of ‘examination of conscience’ as preparation for confession. The individual examines her or his behavior to ascertain whether or, most often which, sins have been committed. I find it mortifying how little in evidence that practice seems to have been at Georgetown Prep in the 1980s. I urge its return there and elsewhere as an effective tool in achieving self-justice and constructive patterns of behavior.
3
You do realize these children were 15 and 16 years old. We may have a rare 15 year old that daily consults his conscience, but I am pretty sure he becomes a saint during his adult years. I am not surprised Georgetown Prep does not have many saints.
@Michael Blazin This practice is taught to children beginning at the age of six when they go to confession for the first time and it continues through grade school and high school. The whole point is to instill self-correction from the time when the person is first capable of an act of will.
Thank you. Should be required reading for, well... anybody, really.
One passage stood out:
"Just people also question themselves. This makes them honest and non-self-deceptive. They vigilantly maintain a clear conscience. Just people are cognizant of their own mistakes and faults, and so they are forgiving of others."
Justice is not often characterized as either internal or forgiving. Our national psyche views justice as punitive, dissuasive, administered by an outside force. Justice is there not as an extension of an inherently just person, but as a way to convince the sinfully inclined masses to stay within the lines.
But on reflection, this characterization of justice holds true. One must understand one's own conduct, and develop over years of practice the ability to moderate behavior, in order to be able to assess and administer justice.
I can't project how many people make self-reflection a hobby, but if this characterization is true, our political situation suggests: not very many at all.
1
Justice is a commonly overused word today as often used to define “my concept of justice”. One person’s justice may, given unexpected consequences, easily become another person’s injustice. And one person’s truth can often be perceived as another’s untruth. We humans just have great difficulty seeing our biases and their unintended consequence. Less judging and more forgiving!
3
This is a very interesting article, but justice has always been a system of balancing one set of interests against another. What distinguishes our judicial process from other decision making systems is that we make the rules of law that govern this balancing process.
First we create law through the democratic process by electing legislatures who enact laws and secondly, we allow judges to make law through their own interpretation and reading of rules and precedent.
We are currently living in a period where both of those processes have been corrupted. The legislative process is ruled by big money and special interests. Right-wing think tanks and corporations write bills for their chosen and well funded politician to introduce.
At the level of SOCTUS, the right wing has for decades worked to stack the court with judges who will expand the power of the state when it comes to war powers, police authority and national security, while reducing the power of the state wherever it's exercised to promote health, safety and personal welfare in ways that might cost corporations money.
The traditional balancing of interests that is essential to justice is now so far tilted toward the elites that what we can expect in the future is extreme neoliberal politics masquerading as judicial philosophy.
8
The legal system in the United States is the wrong place to look for an example of justice that can be used to guide our personal morals.
The law is the law enacted by the legislature, and as a result many laws are manifestly unjust.
Layer on to that the availability of good legal assistance depends entirely upon wealth.
In the end, judges in our system are not free to dispense justice. Rather, they order compliance with unjust law.
6
Fine concepts that give the lie to the way that the Supreme Court is constructed and operates today. The SC is supposed to be comprised of nonpartisan judges who apply their independent interpretations of the Constitution and the law without fear or favor, to dispense something approximating to the "justice" described here. In reality, of course, the SC is, and does, nothing of the kind but is rather a highly (and increasingly) partisan body by which the country's cultural, affluence and business factions seek to prosecute their interests. We know that this is the reality not only by the highly divisive and uncompromising way in which the parties, particularly the GOP, seek to appoint "justices" to the court, but also by its several decisions that mock any notions of the justice described here.
2
I read this piece as I read much philosophy--with a heartfelt yearning for the ideal outlined and genuine gratitude to the for the clarification of a concept. But bringing philosophy into the rough and tumble of the marketplace is, I fear, like bringing a knife to a gun fight. If you walk around with such a north star ideal rattling around in your head, you are bound to get scalped, mainly because so few people and so few of our institutions are built that foundation.
From education to law to finance to industry, justice appears only in temporary pockets of individual heroism, rarely as a pervasive reality. Most of us do not have the luxury of entertaining it with any seriousness, and we secretly admit to ourselves the danger to which it might expose us. I have no intention of hewing to a quixotic notion of justice in a world run by an ignorant and crass conman, a morally challenged simpleton propelled into power by unscrupulous businessmen, ideologues, and opportunists. In this world, I fear, justice is absolutely essential and absolutely irrelevant.
Such skepticism of the concept of justice, however, eats away at our moral and social lives, emptying out our actions until we become, in the words of T. S. Eliot "hollow men." Perhaps THIS is where philosophy should begin, where concepts are stuck in the very muck of the Real. Otherwise, philosophizing becomes a conceptual fantasy for the philosophically inclined--and not, in the end, of much help.
2
Excellent piece. It gets at what I was saying to someone last week.
If Kavanaugh was really the right man for the job, he would have (ironically) taken himself out of the running. He would have realized the damage his nomination and hearing was doing to the country, he would have put "Government for the people" ahead of his own ambitions, and let another qualified but less contentious judge be selected. Instead he thinks the "rules" of justice, morality and ethics don't apply to him, that he is special and "deserves" this job. If he respected the role of the Supreme Court in American life he would have stepped down.
What really would have been wrong with stepping back into the already prestigious position he already had? Nothing, he just felt entitled to be a Supreme Court Judge. There are likely many other judges who could have filled the position just as well or better, but in his own mind he is special.
9
Without justice, we have nothing. And right now, we have no justice in this country. Above all of our other problems, by far the one that needs the most immediate attention, is the restoration of justice. While we still can.
7
It is obvious that currently, if not actually throughout history, our "leaders" are motivated less by a sense of justice and more by The Golden Rule, the one that says, "The people with the gold make the rules".
5
"Just us". Richard Pryor comedy routine about what he found when he went to visit a prison looking for justice.
See "The New Jim Crow : Mass Incarceration in an Age of Colorblindness " by Michelle Alexander; "Locking Up Our Own : Crime and Punishment in Black America " by James Foreman, Jr.; "Dog-Whistle Politics : How Coded Racial Appeals Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class " by Ian Haney Lopez; "The Mis-Education of the Negro " by Carter G. Woodson
6
You give us a nice map. But 'the map is not the territory.' How have you navigated your abstractions in real life?
1
Thanks for reminding me what an injustice was carried out when Brett Kavanaugh ascended to the Supreme Court.
6
is that a six or a nine? It depends on the orientation of the observer.
Kavanaugh or Ford? Justice? How, when both sides are
justifiable according to anyone's lights and bias.
If neither, however, is justified, then neither should be supported. Too much doubt.
It would have been justice to drop both from inquiry and
find a different candidate to fight over.
I side with Ford. She did not lie. Collins lied to herself,
then us. My opinion.
But the seat on the SC should not have been filled in this
particular political miasma.
6
Justice should also involve equal justice under law.
The system that allows a minority of Americans to decide who advises and consents on Supreme Court nominees doesn't seem just, nor fair.
As time passed, we have seen how the republican minority has gained control in the Senate. The Times reported an excellent analysis of why republicans put our rural states in place. We have also seen dedicated, long-standing efforts by the republican party to gerrymander districts to gain an edge in left-leaning jurisdictions to tip the scales in the House of Representatives.
Hopefully, the election on November 6th will result in an upheaval of these republican efforts and successes at stacking the deck of the Senate and House. Republicans will then begin to understand what justice really means.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-apple-pie-the-r...
4
@Ed Both parties are a minority in this country but we have a two party system so the government will always be controlled by a minority party.
The academic and legal world strains to describe justice with no mention of evil, mercy or God. Biblical references are erased from all new courtrooms and banned in most classrooms. You can't find justice with blinders. It is much more than minimal due process and following the mistakes of the past. The best legislators, judges, and litigators understand the mistakes of the past.
3
My experience with justice is that not a single one of the men who inflicted violence on myself, my mother or my sister ever experienced justice for those crimes. That's how a lot of women experience justice. By resigning ourselves to never seeing it work in our own lives.
5
"Leadership without an inner moral compass reliably pointing toward justice inevitably ends in the abuse of power."
You don't say.
2
Thank you for this beautiful commentary. We cannot change other people's behavior (Trump's, Kavanaugh's, et al); we can change only our own behavior. If more of us would follow the precepts in this article, the world WILL be a better place for all.
2
It is interesting that many conservatives pine for the good old days. The days of Andy Griffith, Leave It To Beaver, and Father Knows Best when the weekly message was integrity, honesty, a strong moral compass, helping others, being a good citizen. That honesty and integrity means not cheating.
How has it become acceptable to support leaders that lack even a modicum of these attributes?
4
Larry, Andy Griffith was a nice show. But an all-white town in the South? I can't watch it now because I'm afraid Floyd, Goober and Barney have Klan robes hanging in their closets. How else does Mayberry stay all-white? Racial justice was never mentioned on that show.
1
It could be that Andy, Ward and JIm are upset that they no longer have the privilege of appropriating as their own the wisdom of Aunt Bea, June and Margaret. As a result, it's now acceptable to dishonestly cheat in order to preserve the patriarchy and to rage hysterically against anyone with the audacity to challenge the existing hierarchy of power, domination and control.
2
Readers of The Times, I generally assume, are capable of understanding often complex subtle writing. Complicated stories involving multiple lines of action often appear in it's pages. Stories requiring a rigor on the part of the reader and a willingness to think critically both of the perspective and the subject. So, it is surprising to read the many comments here from folks who could not follow the reasoning in Mr. Bloomfield's gracefully written beautifully thought out opinion piece. His prerequisite of deep self-reflection as a necessary component in the administration of juridical power spoke directly to the events we have all just lived through. How do we trust justice administered by those who falsely aggrandize themselves? Indeed, can justice be administered by self-serving liars? Can the requirement of an honest assessment of personal bias needed to judge with fairness be reasonably expected in a person who lies about his past?
6
Politics should be concerned with justice, but not with dispensing it. So laws must be designed with a maximum of fairness in mind, while those charged with interpreting the law should be independent of the process of creating it. Recent events in the US have tended to resemble the established practices of totalitarian regimes like Russia or Turkey (hardly an exhaustive list, just two obvious examples).
The concept of the benevolent dictator, doing good despite being an autocrat, probably appeals to Mr Trump, although he may not know what "benevolent" means. So for him the search for absolute power going on in Poland and Hungary probably seems perfectly fine. Those "central moral principles of justice" cited in the article have been given a back seat. Ironically, the democratic structures put into place in Germany after WWII are still functioning, while the ridiculous and unwieldy electoral machinery of the USA continues to fail miserably.
2
It takes one outside of our goldfish bowl to recognize what is happening inside it. We are moving toward fascism. We need to pay attention and change course before it is too late. Vote “ blue no matter who” in November.
4
"Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people."
This is true and it reminds us that justice is not a natural state of affairs. The only "natural" justice is that there is no justice whatsoever. Justice presupposes the existence of guilty and innocent parties and (so far as we can tell), those terms are only acknowledged by and applicable to human society. That necessarily means that what is just or unjust with regard to one's actions rests at least partly in the motive behind those actions.
This means that bias and the appearance of bias degrades justice. A person is not permitted to be their own judge because even if they reach the correct result, their personal interests create the appearance of an improper motive. A judge that has expressed personal animus towards a party, for instance, has effectively destroyed their ability to render a just ruling. This is one of the principal reasons judges like Roy Moore had to be removed.
Nor is a legal rationale for an action sufficient to make it a "just" action. We have courts of "law," yes, but people too often forget that the courts of law were purposefully merged with courts of "equity." Applying equity without law results in total chaos. Applying law without equity results in unspeakable cruelties. A just society demands both.
The old saying is: "Let JUSTICE," not merely law, "be done, though the world burn." The alternate variation is "let justice be done... LEST the world burn."
2
"Leadership without an inner moral compass reliably pointing toward justice inevitably ends in the abuse of power."
Giving U.S. a Lifetime appointment of Just-Us Kavanaugh?
We'll see if landing that plum position softens up his views on people vs. Corporations. (not holding my breath)
(Why is it Impossible to execute a Corporation?
I heard they were people, too, my friend.
Have We, the People been lied to?)
2
"Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people." I think that most of us understand this. What I think that a good many of us do not understand is how anyone, no matter what their politics are, religion is, or economic status can watch a person do what Brett Kavanaugh did and what the GOP did and applaud it. It's as if integrity, honesty, transparency, and public service are no longer part of being a public servant. Whether the current GOP dominated Congress and our president like it or not, they are public servants. They are not royalty or hereditary aristocrats. Our taxes pay their salaries. I want an accounting of all the other money that supports them because a good deal of what is going on now in America, courtesy of the Trump owned GOP has nothing to do with public service.
10
With all due respect to the author, justice is an externality not an internalization. Our individual values are ethics and morals, that is the internality. You cannot decide for yourself that your actions, thoughts, etc are just. You can only establish that you live within your own ethics and morals and infer from others if your actions are indeed just.
1
To my Public Defender clients," just us" was their feeling about the justice system. When I was asked why the process wasn't fair, I would tell them fair came once a year, at the county fairgrounds. Nothing speaks the truth better.
1
@Mike Westfall Mike-good to read your post, yet we still are slightly optimistic,eh? aka, Johnny Marathon..
@Lloyd MacMillan Still optimistic! Protesting two times a week. Keep up good things. Good to hear from you.
@Lloyd MacMillan Still optimistic! Still putting up the good fight. Good to hear from you.
To measure how just the American justice system is, ask a simple question: To what extent does money affect the outcome?
The magnitude of justice is the inverse of the effect of money on the outcome.
Occasionally, someone with fewer resources prevails against all odds, but be careful. Confusing an outlier with normal reality is a sure way to misunderstand a situation. To some extent, wealth and resources have a profound impact on the result.
84
@mlbex: I agree with the gist of what you wrote, but the qualification in the last sentence seems out-of-place. The impact is either "To some extent" or (as I would argue) "profound"; it can't be both. Have the courage of your otherwise well-expressed convictions and avoid weakening your conclusion with a dodge. Congatulations on your Times Pick; it's not trivial.
2
@George Moody: I wondered about that myself - after I clicked the Submit button. Good catch.
@mlbex
Courthouses are built for two reasons: To send poor people to prison and allow rich people fight over money. Justice rarely has much to do with it.
You mention authority, but don't have much to say about power. Power tends to do what it takes to preserve itself, which often conflicts with "the truth" (or a particular set of truths) and "justice".
Our whole lives we're told to stand up to bullies, lest they just keep bullying. Seldom are we reminded that bullies often pummel those that stand up to them. Power concedes nothing without a price. Justice always comes at a cost or consequences, which must be measured or mitigated. On a personal level, to think otherwise is naive and often dangerous. But it is, as you say, our ideal.
46
"Truth has stumbled in the public square, and so Justice is far away" writes the prophet Isaiah over 2500 years ago.
Lovely column, but where is the acknowledgement that Justice is based on a seeking of Truth? Truth about ourselves. Truth about the world around us. Truth about verifiable and observable facts.
"Justice, Justice you shall pursue" writes Moses in Deuteronomy.
The philisophical basis for Justice simply cannot be divorced from its Theological basis. Justice (and by extension good government) is a Biblical imperative.
12
@JohnMcFeely I would like to point out that you have conflated "Truth about verifiable and observable facts" and "Justice simply cannot be divorced from its Theological basis". These two things do not go together. When theology studies religion, it is no different from the study of any other human institution. When theology pretends to study the nature of god, it is the only known field of study without a verifiable, observable subject. Justice depends on our common humanity.
10
@JohnMcFeely
If you are serious about “Truth about ourselves. Truth about the world around us. Truth about verifiable and observable facts.” ...
... then how can you possibly state there is a theological basis for justice or that there is a Biblical imperative for anything?
Truth about verifiable and observable facts? And you’re bringing in a ancient work of supernatural fiction as its basis? Can you not see the absurdity of your argument?
3
@JohnMcFeely
"where is the acknowledgement that Justice is based on a seeking of Truth? "
Paragraph 6: "The apotheosis of justice is the courtroom judge... Truth is their goal."
Just people question themselves with regard to the truth about themselves and are "non-self-deceptive." Just persons, especially judges, speak truth to power when necessary for the preservation of fairness to all.
2
This is an inspiring article, but it speaks in a lost language. The ethos in the Trump era is closer to: “those who…cheat, and then don’t get caught… think they’ve ‘beaten the system’ and ‘won.’” And “fooling others into thinking you have earned a victory” IS “the same as genuinely being victorious.”
Cheaters who fool others don’t really care if they are fooling themselves – often times because they can’t recognize it in the first place. Does anyone believe that Donald Trump thinks he is fooling himself or that he doesn’t believe his lies?
There is a tremendous value in America placed on winning. How you win – well, that’s less important. All of the revelations about Trump’s financial history - wealth transfer schemes, tax evasion, shell companies – are likely to have zero impact on Trump. Why? Because his strategies are standard procedures for the wealthy more than we want to believe. Many of his supporters applaud his claims of self-made wealth, and that he “won.” That he broke some delicate china called justice to get there – so what?
Brett Kavanaugh has reduced a position on the Supreme Court to a political office to be won – writing op-ed pieces, campaigning on Fox News. He lied to Congress about stolen Democratic information. In the end? He won. Justice? Collateral damage.
The kind of rarefied ethics that Professor Bloomfield speaks of is, unfortunately, confined to philosophy department seminars. Elsewhere, the “obligation to be fair” is negotiable.
125
@Michael
Yes, and justice of any kind requires a self-awareness that it is not universally experienced. A lack of self-awareness contributes to both self injustice and injustice towards or against others. Thank you for this article - so important to consider!
1
Justice is not an operative abstract. It is a rough approximation of notions of fairness based on the reality that men and women, especially when dealing as political operatives including elected or appointed judges deal from a departure point of self interest, a truism established by until now the 4-4 liberal-conservative split on the Supreme Court.
As much as one may wish for some Solomonic form of justice, the realities of history establish that law and justice are created and dispensed by human beings, all of whom are subject to conscious or unconscious bias. As such the notion is fanciful and since it implies that some are endowed with Solomonic virtues, even dangerous.
In The Federalist No. 51 James Madison famously asked, "But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary…In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men…you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
Recognizing the conundrum, Madison ingeniously created the idea of trying to effect "justice" by reducing political power to only that necessary to facilitate necessary government functions, separating and diffusing even those and, most importantly, establishing a republican form of government which mandated frequent elections arguably the most important if imperfect method of protecting our rights.
32
@Sam
Perhaps it is best for the SC to be a 4-4 court,
so Justice can come about through persuasion
of at least one of the other side. Might be slow,
but maybe sure. 5/4 decisions degenerate into
zero sum "wins."
1
Nicely put, and one cannot help but agree with your clear concepts...when put into action properly and with dignity. But justice may be a wobbly concept, sometimes depending on your starting point. If the appointed judge, supposedly requiring impartiality, may not be able to do so if his/her modus operandi starts from a righteous and and self-entitled position of privilege, unable to impart a just outcome if he/she is unable, by social
distance, to place him/herself in the shoes of 'the other'. Why do you think we are suspicious that Judge Kavanaugh is not the best person for the job? His last apearance was outrageous and perhaps revealing the real Brett Kavanaugh, a disgrace really. Haven't we learned the lesson by electing an outstanding demagogue (and superb liar and crook), to the presidency, a false judge of all things, to our shame? Perhaps we are no better than the officials we elect; if so, we deserve them. Meanwhile, justice is left crying, orphan, unable to do it's job. And without justice, peace in society will remain just a distant dream.
48
@manfred marcus It's a fine line from being quite certain that one is "deserving" of something due to brilliance and hard work, and feeling "entitled" to it. I don't think Justice Kavanaugh felt "entitled" to his appointment to the Supreme Court; I think he felt he had earned it due to hard work and his excellent work on the Federal Court of Appeals. And he saw it being taken away due to an accusation about something that his accuser said happened over 3 decades before when he was 17, and which no one had been able to corroborate. I can fully understand his outrage. He knew it was totally political ad had nothing to do with his qualifications to be a Justice.
Unfortunately, it was played out in both the Senate and the media that he was a "rich, prep school boy" who thought he was "entitled" to be a Supreme Court Justice. There is no question that he came from a family that was wealthy enough to send him to an outstanding private, Jesuit high school. And then to send him to Yale and to Yale Law School. Should a parent not be able to provide such to a child without him being called "entitled"? A "privileged education"? Absolutely! But one where he worked hard and fully took advantage of that privilege. Graduating form Yale cum laude, and just getting into Yale Law School is something of which anyone would be proud.
Trump may have nominated Kavanaugh, but they are not the same person at all. People seem to conveniently forget that.
1
@India I am not questioning Kavanaugh's professional abilities. But as a judge, he must have an even temper, and be, at all times, at least in the public sphere, an individual to show prudence (doing what's right, however hard), and not deviate into an awful partisan diatribe, a bad omen for the absolute requirement of impartiality. Additionally, I thought that Ms Ford was sincere and credible; and, having nothing to gain personally by exposing herself to undue criticism, she tried to prevent an unfit candidate to reach the power of Judgeship at the Supreme Court. Time will tell how right she may have been in the search for justice (or prevent the exercise of injustice in Kavanaugh's hands). I understand the presumption of innocence; too bad that Trump and McGann blocked a full investigation by the F.B.I., afraid of corroborating evidence on Ms. Ford's accusation of sexual assault from a guy so drunk he can't even remember his 'feat'.
In the 1960's I went to a bar and on the men's room wall there was
"Unless there is peace in this bar there will not be peace in the world"
Was this the thought of a dreamer? The bar actually was pretty peaceful( a mixture of students arguing about Camus and older guys
looking into their beers) but we've had very little peace.
Substitute justice for peace and this is Bloomfield"s argument and
philosophical dream. Dream On.
2
Excellent article with much food for thought. We are all in the same soup.
In our time, however, there is a much greater tendency to define the word "justice" to mean "just us," and to act decisively to make that come true.
We all suffer as a result.
3
It's arguable that by nominating the centrist Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, President Obama reflected the "central moral principle" of respecting the other side. In response, McConnell showered contempt on the opposition by citing a precendent to block Garland's nomination based on events that never occurred (the 'Biden rule'). In the end Garland was unfairly maligned, Obama's position was diminished, and Hillary lost. Indeed, as you write "humility has its place, but we shouldn’t overdo it".
13
I tried, but not able to go down this road to perdition... Mr. Bloomfield's thinking leads only to solipsism and narcissism--both on abundant display in Kavanaugh hearings. Evidence, rule of law and due process are better measures for determining whatever "justice" really means.
6
Actions speak louder than words. How do you like the actions of Republicans, who smear, vote without knowledge, and make everything about politics and winning at ANY cost, for their own benefit? NO justice, no peace. We, and our country, are in grave danger.
12
Like the pile of manure which the optimist says must have a pony in there somewhere, I know there's a critique of Kavanaugh in here somewhere. Perhaps Prof. Bloomfield will be so good as to spell it out rather than allow readers to see what they want to see in this piece.
1
@HurryHarry...Then it wouldn't be meaningful philosophy.
3
What a remarkably clear distillation of incredibly complex ideas. I wish I had Paul Bloomfield as a philosophy professor. Both the context and the subtext are rather depressing though. I feel the unmentioned characters in this story are incapable of the type of introspection required to even begin to see justice as a virtue. To them, the word is merely a noun. That's why I find the conversation depressing.
7
A dear friend of mine -- a lawyer -- once told me, "We have a legal system in America, not a justice system."
10
@Jim Vincent This is as it should be. We are a nation of laws and procedures. When those laws and procedures are applied properly, it produces the closest approximation of fairness. Justice systems are lacking as they can ignore the societal impacts of acts.
1
@Jim Vincent I agree. My Con Law professor said that a lot of the Constitution is about (I) who decides and (ii) who decides who decides. We are a democracy. So we do not leave it to 9 individuals to decide what is right and wrong. We decide that collectively through our elected officials. And for some issues that are fundamental and too important to be left to even a temporary majority, we (again collectively) established certain rights that we put in the Constitution, and those things are determined by 2/3's majority of our elected representatives plus ratification by 2/3's of our States. Again, it is by the People, not 9 individuals relying on their personal ethical or philosophic understanding.
3
This describes justice as an ethical concept in moral philosophy. Obviously anyone going into the legal field should study this since it informs your conduct and judgment in your profession. The role of a courtroom or Appellate Judge, though, is governed and constrained by many externals: the Constitution, statutes, case law, regulations. The notion of some moral philosopher deciding right and wrong in Solomonic fashion is the stuff of literature not law.
5
"That's not fair!" seems to this grandfather in his eighth decade, to be the first complete sentence a child utters. Further, he and she do so at an early age.
And it also seems to show, as a practical matter, that everybody seeks fairness which, for discussions sake, I take to be interchangeable with justice (can refine later).
It also appears to be an unending quest: some old people die leaving unmended fences which needed it decades ago.
Of course, as a grandfather or an observer without a stake in the matter, both sides usually present as equally confirmed in their conclusion as to where justice lies. Resolutions if they occur vary in both method and acceptance thereof. From homicide to "I may have to live with it but I don't have to like it" to the rare, agreed "oops, we misunderstood."
FWIW left with hypothesis no one acts knowingly and willingly unjustly but 50% (or some large number; we can refine later) are objectively wrong. Even history's worst malefactors such as ... Herod slaughtering innocents, Pol Pot et al.
Ultimately and way unsatisfactorily left with "what finally happens to, ought to happen to, with all the Herods."
Indeed, very difficult. This article should have been published before the Ford-Kavanaugh hearings. Maybe the GOP would "have caught" Judge Kavanaugh perjuring himself as the rest of the world did catch him when his classmates talked.
Judge Kavanaugh demonstrated that he does not have the "justice" factor to be a judge, least of all a Supreme Court Justice. Impeachment would deliver us from his Supreme Court decision's consequences.
5
The great philosopher, Sidney Morgenbesser, defined justice more succinctly. When he was clubbed on the head by a policeman during the Columbia University student rebellion of 1969, he was asked if that was just. He replied that it wasn't fair but it was just, since everyone else was clubbed over the head.
4
@Diogenes
Seems backwards, and it is:
"unjust, but not unfair. It was unjust because they hit me over the head, but not unfair because they hit everyone else over the head..."
We could check, Larry. The Times had a wonderful obit about Prof. Morgenbesser, the philosopher/kibitzer. But I think you are wrong. Justice means treating people equally.
Unfortunately, the human brain is capable of rationalizing almost anything, including profound injustice. And then there are those who feel a rush of euphoria at "beating the system." A sense of justice must be taught by parents to their young children, through both their words and actions. If children are taught that they are superior to others and entitled to more than their fair share, they will not grow up with an obligation to act justly. Some of the these entitled become judges.
7
@ch What is a person’s fair share and who is to determine that? Doesn’t this concept work in both directions? If as you appear to believe, it’s wrong to expect an outsized return based on ability, effort, etc, isn’t it also wrong to expect an equal share if you don’t put in the effort or try to improve?
2
@John A person’s fair share is determined by society, not metrics. Based on metrics alone, such as hours worked or widgets produced for example, it is hard to imagine any individual being ‘worth’ more than perhaps a few times average. As a society we agree out of compassion, and a hope the thought would be reciprocated, to help those in need; what some debate is how much compassion those who willfully ‘don’t put in the effort’ deserve, correct? That is a societal choice, with which you can personally disagree.
It is also a societal choice how much to over-compensate with ‘outsized returns’ those who provide services universally deemed beneficial to all. That too, is subject to debate, but effectively agreed upon collectively. My personal objection, for what it may be worth, is with those who effectively take an undeserved ‘outsized’ share, based on the societal norms discussed above, while simultaneously failing to ‘put in the effort.’ I don’t think clarification should really be necessary, but let me try: pushing numbers from one column to another, produces nothing, provides no collective benefit, and invariably accomplishes little more than stealing from those who have worked hard.
My blindspots are devious. When offended by others, when my mind wants to explode with indignation and throttle the offender, I now try to remain quiet. I let the fire burn in silent thought (sometimes eyes bulging) instead of screaming my knowledge of injustice at the TV (or the person in front of me). Examine what the offense was that got me going before giving immediate voice.
Invariably the most visceral reactions are elicited in gross examples of what I desperately want to change about myself, about my thoughts, actions and behaviors. The anger that burns brightest is the injustice my mind is blind to within me. It finds focus in outrage with others. Perhaps, I may learn from this...
Examine the outrage, rather than the object of the outrage, and find that most of the fear and loathing is more about me than them.
I hate in others what I hate in myself...mostly.
3
Mr. Bloomfield you say, "We need leaders motivated by a love of justice and not merely self-aggrandizement. Leadership without an inner moral compass reliably pointing toward justice inevitably ends in the abuse of power."
Apparently "justice" and taxes are only for the little people - the great unwashed masses. We are supposed to be reasonable and treat each other well while those who have control of OUR lives go on their merry way, robbing us blind at every turn.
Today I am more sick than ever in the last two+ years. Rachel Maddow (MSNBC 9 pm ET weeknights) reported last night that there is compelling proof that the New York Times knew The Con Don was under investigation and buried the real story. They gave lip service to it and said there could be a number of reasons the The Con Don's campaign was in constant cyber contact with Russians. Strangely as soon as it was learned the Con Don web site mysteriously was taken down.
The Con Don is not guilty of "collusion" because it's not a prosecutable offense. The Koch brothers, the Con Don, Mitch McConnell, every cabinet member, regulatory agent and judge appointed by this sham president and every operative trying to take us back to the dark ages - and those like the NYT who could prevent it - are guilty of treason. They are trying to destroy true social/economic justice in OUR United States of America.
Thanks for the article but WE THE PEOPLE are about to show you what "justice" really means on November 6.
12
@njglea: In junior college, I tool a law class from a cynical old lawyer who said "we have plenty of justice in America. How much can you afford."
8
Apparently the NYT knew well before the election but they - like the rest of the media - decided Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton's "e-mails" were more important. Made me sick.
The Good Old Boys cabal strikes again.
The rest of the media is not off the hook either. Television news and "talking head" shows had The Con Don's picture up 24/7 and allowed him to "call in" to them.
WE THE PEOPLE are not going to take it anymore. Socially Conscious Women across America and around the world are stepping up to take one-half the power to bring balance and relative peace to the world and communications.
I'm not talking about women like Sarah Palin, Nikki Haley, Susan Collins, princess Trump, Kelly Anne Conway, Hope Hicks, Oprah Winfrey and friends or any of the other Koch brothers/Robber Baron female operatives. They are not socially conscious and have bought into the Good Old Boys way of thinking to climb the ladder on OUR backs.
I'm talking about the new, young crop of Women and men who want to preserve OUR lives - not destroy them with their insatiable, supposedly "entitled" greed.
Those are the people to elect/hire. NOW.
11
@njglea: We thought we were all going to do that in the '60s too. How did it work out? Still, you gotta try. Maybe someday someone will get this leadership thing right. Who knows, it might be you-all.
"The rulings of judges, however, are also undeniably moral, bearing as they do on issues of justice, restitution and the execution of punishment."
That which is legal may not be fair or moral in an absolute sense. There are many examples, but a quick and relatively benign one is eminent domain. People who have had their property taken from them without consent certainly would not consider that judgment fair. They might even think such a judgment immoral. Thou shalt not steal. Even though people receive a compensation referred to as "fair market value," to some it would always be theft if they were an unwilling seller.
Judges are required to administer justice according to our laws, not according to what is considered fair or moral by some absolute standard. A judge may well be biased if his grandfather's land was flooded to create a reservoir. A good judge sets his personal biases aside to consider the greater good as codified in extant law.
To create a society, we agree to live with a set of rules--some of which we like, some of which we don't. Sometimes, when laws allow behavior most consider immoral, like human slavery, extant law is changed. Saying that the rulings of judges are undeniably moral is to fan the flame of public distrust. It's better to say "the rulings of judges, however, are also undeniably legal" and leave it at that.
4
@CF
You are obviously forgetting that many of our laws are unjust and proposed and propagated by political expediency.
Most laws passed by our congress are patently unjust. Instead of having the motto of "Equal Justice Under Law" inscribed on the Supreme Court building , it should read
"Let Justice Be Done" That would do away with the many ambiguous rulings to the court. Remember it was this court that ruled slavery legal.
5
It seems like a good idea to have all Supreme Court nominees read this essay before they declare themselves to be worthy of consideration. Of course, realistically no one can meet these definitions of always being aware of justice, right and wrong or even putting others first. We are all too human but we can try to be better and awareness can come even to the greatest miscreants many of whom float around the halls of Congress like evil spirits.
1
I think this article demonstrates the great difficulty humans can have when attempting to clearly and precisely communicate with one other using written language. The writer uses the word “justice” as a catch-all for a number of very complex concepts which are actually significantly different from one another, and he assumes that the reader can easily follow his line of reasoning as he blithely skips from one “meaning” of the word “justice” to the next. I don’t think this will always happen.
3
An independent judiciary is a bulwark of our democracy.
Professor Bloomfield poses a brilliant essay; and gives meaningful interpretation of personal and societal values. But universally, justice can transcend the case of one to the case of many.
One is reminded of "Judgment at Nuremberg", a classic film written by Abbey Mann in 1961. The film emphasizes the trial of German Judges and Prosecutors by an International Military Tribunal in 1948. The Judges stand accused of crimes against humanity during the Third Reich in Nazi Germany.
One German Judge in the film (Played by Burt Lancaster) invites an American Judge (Played by Spencer Tracy) to his cell after the verdict. Lancaster is in denial that he was part of the machinery leading to mass deaths in Nazi Regime. Tracy responds that it all began when Lancaster first sentenced an innocent Jewish man to his death, knowing him to be innocent.
Patriotism in the name of unjust values and falsehoods is no virtue--whether it be in Nazi Germany or in present day America.
19
Excellent essay. Sort summary - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That one tenet, if lived, would fix a lot of what's wrong, not just in our country, but in our world.
19
@Michael -- well, yes -- as long as we don't consider the masochists.
The concept of human justice and prospects for justice?
In the animal world, apart from the human, the chemical/biological life cycle is quite unjust, from human perspective, transfers of energy; everyone is familiar with the predator/prey dichotomy for example. Now humans are creatures not only omnivorous, somewhere between predator and prey, we are conscious, aware to excruciating effect of not only the multiple ways in which we can be prey but of our probable insignificance in the vastness of existence.
Hence our obsession with justice. Our very consciousness increases our sense of our weakness and makes us ask for justice for ourselves, to not be prey not only before other life forms in nature but prey of the vast universe itself. Worse, our progress made by our superior intellects and awareness and sympathy of our general plight and toward our fellow humans has increased in many respects our weakness (possibility of old age, tolerance of the many forms of medical and mental degeneration from which we can suffer, etc.) to point that we seem to be increasing both our consciousness and general weakness which of course results in the Catch-22 situation of being desperate for just more justice.
Add consciousness to a creature and increase its weakness the more it cries for justice. Add consciousness and increase its strength however, probably the less it bothers with concepts like justice and never achieves justice or the good. A truly complex, terrible and ironic problem.
4
??? … ???!
3
@Richard Luettgen
Rhetorical I presume?
@mike hailstone
Editorial, actually.
A very fine piece which bears on intrapersonal aspects of justice, which are what spring to mind when discussing justice. After all, the concept of justice inherently relates to interpersonal behavior; as John Rawls put it, the first virtue of social institutions. Without civilization, a world of isolated, self-sufficient, loners, the very idea of justice is irrelevant. Interaction and cooperation allows us to succeed collectively, in ways otherwise impossible. Yet society also brings with it the seeds of conflict: someone will inevitably feel they have been treated unfairly, because sooner or later, someone *will* treat others unfairly. Why this is the case, arises from the penumbral ground occupied by the human species, between the realm of autonomous individuals, and that of herd/hive members. This conflict of instinct and personal/public interest spawns the need for justice – it is innately a function of community and culture.
Here we see the important role played by character and objective introspection in equitably meting out justice. It behooves us to understand the attributes which epitomize reasonable conflict resolution and promotion of harmony among us. If knowledge is the search for truth, then justice is the pursuit of fairness. Justice serves both to mitigate and prevent conflict. Confidence that rule of law and fair treatment will prevail, preserves the peace; lack of belief in those entrusted to pass judgment can only serve to encourage the opposite.
7
No civilized person, if he or she is honest, can disagree with the thoughts expressed by Paul Bloomfield about justice.
The problem is in practicing justice or fairness, a less daunting word and one not draped in the self-important black robes and fancy courtrooms of a legal system.
We all know what is fair, but some of us have problems being fair to others.
Whether or not one is religious and regardless of the religion with which one identifies, the clearest notion of what it means to practice fairness is the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Doing the right thing, however, gets complicated for a person obsessed with personal victimhood (like Donald Trump), driven by misogyny (like Donald Trump), infected with racial and religious bigotry (like Donald Trump), having an obsessive need for attention (like Donald Trump), and so sensitive to criticism that revenge consumes everything else (like Donald Trump).
38
What is the antithesis to what ' Justice ' really means? Everything that the new member of the Supreme Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh is about!
19
Silly article, written by someone who knows nothing of the law, of procedural fairness, or the impossibility of attaining justice under practical circumstances. As a philosopher, the writer could start with Rawls.
1
Why is it not possible for philosophers to use simple English? Is it that they do not want the "unwashed" to understand their Emperor's clothes?
1
We as a society would be better off if Justice were truly blind. It strikes me odd that in a court room you loose your constitutional rights , such as freedom of speech to name one. Or being told to take your hands out of your pocket.Little stupid thing just to show who's boss and intimidate the individual.I would think that if Justice wanted to be truly blind [ sounds dumb ] they would where a blind fold.
So how is it Justice just if the crime committed was able to be satisfied by a fine? A wealthy individual would be able to pay the fine but a poor person would not, so he goes to jail while the wealthy walk. That is not Just or fair. When the wealthy are able to control the levers of power there is no Justice. As the saying goes " money is power " !!
6
I would like to see a piece about justice as it applies to SCOTUS. How can the SCOTUS execute its constitutional responsibility as a check on congress, if the role of the "justices" is to simply call balls and strikes? Is it just for a supreme court justice to declare that he/she is able to read the minds of our founding fathers? When one of our founding fathers - Benjamin Franklin - said that our constitution is not the ideal but simply the best of all the other options, where does this notion of strict constructionist as being patriotic and faithful to the founding fathers even come from? Does the conservative mindset bend toward justice? No, it bends toward consolidation of power. How about writing a piece on that?
20
I beg to differ. Let me establish that I have no idea how you define a "conservative." Or how you might define a "liberal." Further I suggest these terms have no useful meaning in this context.
Rather the two sides of this debate are "originalist/textualist" vs "living Constitution." The originalist/textualist view is that the Constitution should be interpreted in the context of what the average person would say it means at the time of its drafting. (Note that amendments are judged at the time of their drafting.) Hence the reliance on the Federalist Papers and the dictionary. Should the People choose to change that meaning the process is to amend the Constitution. They accept the thesis that the role of the judiciary is to "call balls and strikes." The "living Constitution" faction believes that the inherent wisdom of 5 individuals should define and redefine what the Constitution means based on their personal viewpoints.
Consider Justice Sotomayor's comment about being a "wise Latino woman." It is difficult to determine how race and gender influence "balls and strikes." It is easy to accept her point of view if you believe 5 people get to decide what is meant by the Constitution.
What is particularly troublingly is that in the Sturm und Drang of the Justice Kavanaugh confirmation none of this saw the light of day. Rather we had hysterical rantings about Roe and Casey et alia.
Clearly, Democrats have no interest in justice. Democrats do not know how to mind their own business. Democrats violate the moral principles of justice, which are the same as those on which the USA was founded. Instead, Democrats want power in order to impose the will of the mob on individuals. Democratism is the new communism. Never vote for any Democrat. Ever!
2
@bruce "Democrats want power in order to impose the will of the mob on individuals" is exactly what the republicans are doing to the country now. trump is rallying republicans to violence against democrats & those who refuse to submit to republican rule. The difference is that Democrats will not arm themselves at polling places to intimidate voters while republicans/NRA will. Republicans want a dictatorship, a one person rule. The reason is that they will not have to fear losing power to someone of a different sex, color, religion, or ethnicity. You fear losing your identity. SAD!
14
@bruce
.....and up is down, in is out, night is day.
1
I am abashed to say this:
I have a PH.D. In anthropology but, for me, this article could just as well have been written in Chinese. The sentences are incredible!
I’d give you an early example but can’t retrieve it while I am writing this.
Doesn’t the NYT have an editor that could help the author make his ideas intelligible?
However, I’m glad others were able to get something from it.
3
@violetsmart I agree. It reminded me of reading most any essay of Thomas Sowell but with a simpler form of gobbledygook.
1
Thanks for this timely column Professor Bloomfield. I hope you will consider writing another one on the history, meaning, use, and misuse, of the phrase “social justice.” As another commentator notes this is a commonly used, and abused, phrase these days, but it is rarely defined. In my professional life in higher education it is often used in conjunction with diversity and inclusion and some have even created a initialism— DISJ. But while I think I can usefully define diversity and inclusion, I have found the concept of social justice, presumably that which creates a just society, too grand to attempt as a goal of the contemporary workplace.
2
Justice is life itself, for humans need a sense that we belong, are equals among the tribe, and that we are never abandoned because we are either too weak to defend ourselves, or are not of the "inner circle".
When justice fails, when we see that, as in Putin's Russia, the rule of law is pretend, that the super rich run everything including the judges and the judgements, then we are no longer a tribe of fellow humans, but instead animals on the plain, subject to the whims and needs of the most brutal and the most "Trumpian".
American "Justice" thought it was fine to murder tens of thousands of Iraqis in a "Shock and Awe" war crime, just so we could steal their oil. America isn't about justice it is about power, and cutthroat capitalist greed exerting its power.
Hugh
1
Good things happen to bad people, bad things happen to good people - making it self-evident that life requires man-made rules and laws, that we must not expect but strive for justice - because life has always been and always will be too often not fair, not just.
We recognize the truth that the world is no paradise, it is not the realization of our ideals. But that realization only makes us want to be better, to do better, to make life more just for all of us. Except, not all share, value justice.
So how demoralizing when our striving to be better is spit upon. When the symbols of justice are transformed into an insult to justice, then we are all demeaned and spit upon.
The Supreme Court has lost its legitimacy to represent justice. Confirming Kavanaugh has not just been a partisan political spectacle and debacle, it has made a sham of the pursuit of justice itself and it has left decent Americans wiping spit from our faces.
52
Professor Bloomfield describes a place where I would like to live and work. There are universal principles that our Founding Fathers inserted into the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, but much of these have been abandoned or corrupted by government at all levels. Power and privilege too often trump the rights of the poor, the inarticulate and the innocent. If one cares to see what justice looks like today, visit the Stewart Detention Center in rural Georgia, a privately owned hellhole contractor for the US government housing men, women and youths headed to deportation. In many states, prisons are critical to local economies. The court system coast-to-coast has become a tool for the powerful and a nightmare for everyone else. Like a giant bulldozer, money and power rule and heaven help those who get in the way. The America Jefferson, Madison and Adams envisioned? They would be outraged.
2
Justice is a human concoction. What humans really do is pick and choose among a virtually infinite number of choices at any given time. Now this is what is known as "free will." I know who I am and who you are by the choices you make. You are fooling yourself if you think you can judge objectively, and thus, apply justice. Lawyers and judges pick and choose which among often conflicting laws they prefer to apply. This is why I am not religious: It should be apparent to everyone that Christians, Jews and Muslims pick and choose from the Bible and the Koran passages that justify their choices. It is also why we just had an all out no holds bared fight over the Kavanaugh confirmation. Supreme Court Justices pick and choose from the US Constitution which aspects they prefer to apply.
2
This is beautiful writing. Thank you.
4
When judging their own virtues and weaknesses, most judge themselves to be just - just as most down deep believe themselves to be intelligent. We may acknowledge individual strengths and shortcomings, but we see ourselves as smart and just. This is necessary for us to continue. However, the many beliefs that we hold reek havoc with both intelligence and justice. In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof of how we have tricked the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about just what is supposed to survive. When we see what we have done to ourselves, we will begin the long trek back to reason, sanity, and true justice. See RevolutionOfReason.com
2
I try to judge myself and my motives first in every instance. I always try, at least, to see the other person's view. Try, but not always succeed however as I am no saint.
I was born into a household that honored the ten commandments, but I think I already had a working moral compass at a young age that might have come with my gene pool package. It defines me today still.
When I was small I had a toy that some other kids envied and wanted to play with. One took it from me and tried to break it. This kid was punished by her mother, she apologized to me yet my mother said not to let her ever play with that toy again. I didn't agree with her. In fact I was angry she was unforgiving in this instance because she usually wasn't.
(I think it was a matter of household monies and the budget for replacement. I was a kid careful with my toys.)
I offered the other little girl the toy to play with, she took it, thanked me with a big smile, played with it most of that day, and we both took very good care of that toy from then on. It became ours.
Chances at redemption is what we should offer everyone.
4
The context of this opinion piece is the kavanaugh confirmation. I was gratified to see the storm in Washington replaced by the storm in Florida in the media. I wish there were no storms in either location. I was glad to see only six protesters yesterday at the Supreme Court. Healing is tangible and needed and justice for one is injustice for another. Our Constitution provides that a President nominates and the Senate, if it chooses, advises and consents. The Constitution provides for elections to the House and Senate and that is the venue of choice. There is a first amendment right to protest which is something we cannot ever afford to lose and civil disobedience is also something that can be critical as we learned in the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. The country will get the type and form of justice it elects. That was decided long ago.
1
@alan brown
I appreciate the even tone of your comment. How do you square it with Mitch McConnell's decision not to even consider President Obama's candidate, Merrick Garland? Isn't that a violation of the Constitution? Or is that what you meant by "if it chooses"?
2
@Eb Yes, that is what I meant by if it chooses. I think it was unjust to not consider Garland but the political climate has been toxic. I date this from the ill-advised impeachment of Bill Clinton. The exercise of the nuclear option by Democrats in 2013 for judicial nominees below the Supreme Court, in hindsight, was a grievous mistake. Somehow, someone, sometime must rise above party and heal the wounds that have been inflicted. A House divided.......
Rather than asking what is this thing called "justice," one might ask what makes a society a just or fair society or what makes an act a just act. On one view, a just society is a society in which every member receives his or her due. The devil is in the details, of course, but considering what each person is due seems to me to be a good start to dealing with issues of justice. Take civil rights, for example. Where people are discriminated against on the basis of race or gender, the problem, on this view, is that they are not receiving their due--they are not being given all the opportunities to live a fulfilling live (to pursue happiness) that other people have. The claim that they are not being treated fairly can thus be interpreted as the claim that, for no good reason, they are being treated in such a way as to receive less than their full due--less than what is due to them as human beings or as citizens.
Further, one of the obstacles to being just, as the author points out, is the human tendency not to see oneself as one really is, which can lead to receiving more than one's due (or less). The same goes for the tendency not to see others as they really are, which can lead to their receiving less than is their due.
6
"it is often the case that we are much better at spotting the faults of others"
That is the cause of much conflict.
We judge others by how their actions affect ourself and others - but judge ourselves by our intent (always at least neutral)- a much more forgiving standard.
What's fair for us is not fair for others.
Particularly for Republicans who love to judge others, but not themselves, harshly.
And so the Justice of a Republican verges on biblical revenge whose goal is not to teach and make better for all, but to exact punishment and exert and extend the supremacy of a controlling ideology.
Never does a Republicans speak of Justice, but always of Law and Order. If Justice is the goal, Republicans are unfit for the bench.
19
A clear and well =written article. Which misleads. Words which are inadequate to contend with the caveat of the General Semanticists: The map is not the territory which it was graphically created to represent. And the word, any word, cannot adequately, describe, explain, inform, delineate, what IT purports to, whoever, and whatever its user. This includes "justice." A word. Term, Concept. Process. Outcome. Value. Norm. Ethic. And much more. In whatever voiced or signed language. The author introduces the notion of questions which can clarify, if and when the answers prove to be helpful. It is useful to consider that there are relevant and irrelevant questions.As well as answers. There are legitimate and illegitimate questions. 1+1=2, a consensualized "fact," can be irrelevant if and when we choose not to consider asking and exploring what are the implications, consequences and outcomes of "2" in a range of known, unknown for now and even unknowable situations.Conditions. Consider, 2 is obviously more than 1. Pres. Trump received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton!When "justice" for ALL is mantrafied into little more than joined letters. In a toxic,WE-THEY culture, a divided country of diverse populations, enabling daily violating of created, selected and targeted "the other(s) what can be its very essence?When reigning-injustice is justified judiciously by complacent, complicit "good" people, and anchored in principles of faith by willful blindness, deafness and ignorance?
"Bias toward the self often leads to bias against others." Which is the nub of the matter. Everyone is biased toward self, then family, then tribe ... Read Fukuyama's "Identity" for a nice explanation. Or just accept this as "identity politics." And built into the human genome.
Justice depend on society agreeing on a set of rules and then enforcing the rules. it also depends on a mechanism for discarding rules that no longer serve their purpose or those that have been identified as having a purpose contrary to the general view of morality. Justice is not served by bypassing agreed upon procedural mechanisms when those in power unilaterally decide their vision of "the greater good" (or their need to gain or retain power) is paramount.
Justice evolves with evolving thought. Prior to 1700 AD slavery was the norm throughout the world. (In other words for at least 5,000 but more likely 250,000 years.) What changed? Acceptance of a persuasive argument that slavery was immoral (not "unjust.")
All of this suggests that "Justice" does not stand alone but rather is an outcome is a society's morality.
21
Well written. Justice is listening to the small voice, within us that tells us that this action, decision is correct for us. This sense of correctness is what guides us.
Sadly our politicians have been listening to the Trump noise and have lost their way.
11
Professor Bloomfield is really pointing out why almost 3000 swho deal with the ethics of justice everyday sent a letter to Congress opposing the confirmation of now Justice Kavanaugh. Justice is a process of learning, of constantly seeking the ideal of truth. It is not about partisanship that blinds one to the needs and voice of others. It is about impartial listening to than inner voice and the echoes of that voice in society through the words and actions of others. And it is about weighing the need for mercy and compassion against punishment and vengence.
We portray Justice as a blind folded woman holding the scales of truth. She is both forgiving and stern in her in this search. This ideal was severely compromised when Justice Kavanaugh lashed out at his perceived opponents before his eventual confirmation and we are still waiting for any sense that he understands any of this.
50
@just Robert ~
"...we are still waiting for any sense that he understands any of this."
We will be waiting a long time. At the moment Kavanaugh seems "drunk" with his desire for the ultimate judgeship.
24
Justice is fairness says John Rawls. Yes it’s a sound bite but it’s true and cuts to the chase.
6
Excellent article, Professor Bloomfield. Should be required reading for all justices within our judicial system, as well as all Americans elected to public office.
Equal Justice Under Law. So reads those majestic words as one climbs that long staircase leading up to the Supreme Court. Words well describing the role of justice in our system of government.
20
"No one can love freedom heartily, but good men. The rest love not freedom, but license." (John Milton)
Freedom is the ability to do what you choose without negatively impacting the lives of others. (paraphrased from 'On Liberty' by John Stewart Mill)
True Justice is the undoing of an action which negatively impacts another - to make it as though the act never occurred in the first place. However, how do we 'undo' some actions? The universe tends to work on what a mathematician would call a Markov Chain; once you've moved from one state to another, you can't go backwards again. To this end, we as a society try to simulate Justice through incarceration, fines, public shaming, even executions for extreme acts. Dr. Bloomfield does a very good job of explaining the various conditions upon which that simulation requires in order to apply fairly. After all, since we can't roll back time, psychologically our society still needs at least the semblance of Justice, so we seek fairness. Perfect rebalance is impossible, so we seek fairness.
The sad truth is that true Justice is impossible for many things, so we try to address the resulting imbalance by attempting to create fairness. Without at least that, no action can be redressed in any manner which is remotely satisfying and seeks to assuage our need for balance.
10
Ironically, the good professor neglects the foundational anchor for justice - both in the courtroom and in private life - a presumption of innocence and truth-telling.
Whether judging someone across the table or in a court of law - that person deserves our respect that they are telling the truth absent any compelling evidence to the contrary or history of abusing the truth.
Just in passing - Nietzsche would violently disagree with me and the professor.
6
I'm sorry, but no. Justice is a need for redressing balance by the one who was perpetrated upon. The introduction of innocence into the equation is the result of societies over time not wanting the search for Justice to morph over into Vengeance.
8
@JustJeff Actually, it is important to address innocence as persecution of an innocent person is an injustice on to itself. You cannot have fairness and balance in a world where we don’t attempt to make sure that those we jail and ostracize are in deed guilty. That balance comes from the presumption of innocence. Presumption of guilt is not inherently just. The quest for justice comes in a world that is filled with uncertainty and a requirement that we judge others as a society. To start that quest from a position that others are guilty is in itself unjust.
@SteveRR
The presumption of innocence is a construct to force the State to prove its case. It is a fundamental protection against tyranny of the State.
But it is not fundamental to Justice. Justice requires neither the presumption of guilt or innocence. Justice is blind, without presumption or prejudice. Justice does require fair process.
The presumption of innocence is procedural and may help Justice to be done. But it doesn’t guaranty Justice. Just ask those wrongfully convicted.
Justice is an ideal which is achieved ( or, at least, approached), when the process is fair, the judge is wise and unprejudiced, and when those who merit reward or punishment , are accorded their just due.
14
This is a beautiful essay that hits all the right notes in defining what justice is.
During this demoralizing era of Trump, I have asked myself over and over again how it is that so many Americans can act in such shockingly cruel ways.
All of us have experienced some form of suffering, ALL of us, so how is it that some of us continue to lack compassion, while others are overflowing with empathy for their fellow men and women?
I think one answer is that some people USE their suffering, they don't waste it. Suffering helps them gain solidarity with their fellow sufferers. They say "I have suffered, so I know how you must feel. I will help you."
Others suffer and, consciously or unconsciously, conclude that others should too, maybe more if possible. It doesn't bring them closer to humanity. Ironically it drives them further away.
One person wastes suffering by not growing from it, the other enhances his/her own compassion through fully experiencing it.
This is only a partial answer but it's what I have concluded. How you get people to use their suffering in a redemptive way that enhances their humanity is another question to ponder.
64
Social justice warriors is used as an epithet by some "conservative" people. What does that say when we think about the meaning of justice?
We are in a time when truth, justice and the American way have become garbled and distorted. What is described in this piece has little relevance to our politics. Winning is everything. Truth is what you can make people believe.
Patriotism, pride in country, but also demanding that the country live up to its ideals, has been captured as a political tool. Powerful forces have been unleashed to manipulate public opinion.
Justice makes demands on us. It requires that we will behave with integrity in our personal and public lives. It also requires that, in a democracy, we demand it from our government while realizing that the result will be imperfect. The imperfection should not mean that we must abandon the ideal.
31
Justice hardly exists in the US, where almost everything hinges on the quality and quantity of the lawyers you might be lucky to hire. That's why our prisons teem with the innocent poor, and those convicted of minor offenses (or those not yet convicted at all) while major criminals are bailed out by the government or the corporations they work for. The recent Kavanaugh debacle is just the tip of a very large iceberg.
112
@Paul Adams
I don't agree. Imperfect justice exists in the US and we should be careful about how we denigrate it. Yes, there are many examples of cases where the truth did not prevail. (See OJ Simpson acquittal). We have a long way to go until we get to perfection. But after 36 years as a lawyer and having observed thousands of outcomes, I have concluded that "justice" and "justice system" are two different things. The justice system is filled with flawed human beings from lawyers to judges to juries. Most work hard and try their best, but because they are human, their best is often not good enough to do justice each and every time. For me, justice within the justice system is about both the process and "due process". And I'm looking for people in power who strive to make the processes better and fairer. That increases the odds of a just result. It would help if somehow judges could be selected for their judicious deliberative skills, but I'm not sure there's any society that has figured that one out. And don't be so sure that you'd be one of those judges if given the chance.
1
@Paul Adams
Who is "our" ? Who is "we"?
Justice exists for a majority of poor and rich white Americans.
Injustice exists for a majority of poor and rich black Americans.
Socioeconomic political power is "justice".
White American lives always matter. White American lies hardly ever matter.
2
@Paul Adams
Justice exists for rich and poor white Americans.
Injustice exists for rich and poor black Americans.
White lives matter. White lies don't matter.