-1

Of course, there are types of Justice found in Philosophy, Social studies and Humanities like: - Distributive. - Retributive. - Compensatory. - Procedural. All of these types speak about a style of Justice I call it the Blind Justice, where there's no consideration except Justice, i.e: there is no Spirit of the Law.

What if we legitimised the Spirit of the Law, and made Mercy for the Merciful, Justice for the Just and Injustice for the Unjust. This Style is Called: Visionary, Seer, Discerning style.

If we are able to apply visionary style, we apply it. But if we can't we comeback to the Blind Style.

So, Is Mercy for the Merciful, Justice for the Just and Injustice for the Unjust constitute a type of Justice?

  • Your questions are extremely good. This forum is mostly controlled by people with a narrow training in formally bound and bigoted analytic philosophy who aren't used to thoughtful examination. Of course, narrowness is useful in its own fashion, since it produces greater power within its proper domain. – Joseph Lutz Oct 14 at 19:56
  • 1
    @JosephLutz. Thanks. I think my words are very clear. I hope the voting users will understand me. I introduce real Philosophy. Thanks Joseph. – salah Oct 14 at 21:06
  • Shouldn't the unjust receive justice? Not injustice? – user4894 Oct 14 at 22:31
  • 3
    @JosephLutz. Terms such as 'bigoted' are not acceptable here. – Geoffrey Thomas Oct 14 at 23:34
  • 2
    @JosephLutz: My training is in continental philosophy which is rarely known to most people. Yet, the StackExchange format is not suitable to do philosophy or have genuine philosophical questions answers, but is meant to be about questions and answers about and based on existing philosophy. This has nothing to do with being narrow-minded or bigoted, it is how the host of the site and the community decided how this site shall work like. If this does not suit your needs, this may simply not be the right place for you. – Philip Klöcking Oct 15 at 15:35
1

The primary difficulty is that the spirit of the law, as the dictates of conscience, are regarded, if not simply as subjective, that is, as arbitrary, in practical terms they are viewed as ideological or politically motivated. So, the further one goes from the ideal form of a positive law which requires no moral judgments in its administration, an ideal which is never realized and unrealizable, the more one becomes politically violent and arbitrary (as we see today in the American legal circumstance and elsewhere).

As I mentioned in my, quite unfortunately, and wrongfully, suppressed answer to the last question pertaining to mercy, these questions are sterile without a specific content.

Justice is usually distinguished from law, or, more exactly, from positive law. Justice has to do with conscious of the gods, or moral conscience. With the subject matter of the Euthyphro for example. The Flintstones cartoon has a show where Fred's moral deliberations manifest as an angel and a devil on his shoulders. Ergo, the gods speaking within, inner deliberation of what Cicero calls the ego arbiter. This can be distinguished from utilitarian external considerations based on experience which can be made wholly clear and legally objective as standards.

Is "blind Justice" supposed to mean the "letter of the law?" Then it names positive law. Rather than Natural Law. Natural Law appeals to Justice as measured within. By the wise, or, at least, practically wise (phronimos) judge, or the judge of sound normal faculties of heart and mind.

As to "Mercy for the merciful" and the other two statements, this is a peculiarly curious principle. In a certain sense, so far as I can see, it is original (not withstanding its biblical overtones). However, what is required is that the notion of mercy be given specific content so it can be worked out if the ideas are practically absurd or sound. That is, do they have a sense in real life, and what is it?

1

Is Mercy for the Merciful, Justice for the Just and Injustice for the Unjust constitute a type of Justice?

No. First two actions are justice. But on the whole, this is injustice. This would become justice if you replace the word injustice with justice. The action taken against the unjust is for reminding them of the importance of justice in life. Often it is given like a shock treatment. I mean, if the action taken against the unjust is like this (justly), it is not injustice...it is justice. What action would you take against the unjust in a case in which there are both the just and the unjust included? Would it be an 'injustice' to resolve the issue? If it were injustice it would worsen the situation; otherwise it would subside. Aren't I right?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.