Page Title

Text Box: JUSTICE In the most common aspects of relations justice is relatively easy to determine. An employee should be honestly and righteously paid for work done and should honestly and righteously do that for which he is paid. Marriage entails mutual obligations and exclusivities which may not be abridged. Merchants and those who provide services must render that for which they are paid and must so do not necessarily to the best of their abilities for the best of their abilities may not be sufficient. By way of example, one who performs heart surgery to the best of their ability, but who is not trained in heart surgery but rather is trained only in cutting trees, can not in justice offer to provide the service of heart surgery. So those who provide services and merchandise must provide the best of what is expected and requested by the one to whom they provide the service or merchandise. The recipient must pay a righteous price or fee and the price or fee requested or charged must also be righteous. But justice applied to transgressions or wrongs is much more difficult to ascertain. If a transgressor accidentally breaks the property of another justice generally will require the transgressor repair or replace the property if this is possible. If it is not possible, then perhaps monetary compensation or some other form of compensation will fulfill the requirements of justice. But it is also possible that the owner of the property will deem justice requires no repair, replacement, or compensation, even if the transgressor determines there is a need for some form of restitution. This type of situation can result in very interesting dilemmas. But where the transgressor intentionally breaks the property of another, justice requires not just compensation, but something more. It is this something more which causes problems for it is based in an aspect of Divine

Text Box: Equilibrium; in the concept that we should make restitution for transgression of Divine Law or the transgression of God’s requirements. This concept of “something more” applies especially if that which is broken is something for which no compensation can be made, such as a human life. Prior to a range of years generally between 1700 and 1850, depending on country or location, intentional transgressors, or as they are more commonly known, criminals, who committed severe crimes were named outlaws meaning they were placed outside of the protection of the law. This meant that anything done to them by those who were not outlaws would be approved or at least not punished. Outlaws could be jailed and their punishment could range from serving time in jail at the pleasure of the magistrate, to being whipped, placed in stocks, and even executed, depending in part on the crime and the desire of the magistrate. Eventually the corporal punishments were abandoned in favor of serving a term in prison. But there was no real correlation between the time served in prison and the crime other than certain crimes resulted in a specified range of years in prison. Serving time in jail for commission of a crime became the punishment for the crime, but without a realistic correlation to the crime there was no meaning to the punishment. If the criminal were made to make restitution for that which was damaged in the commission of the crime, then the victim would receive some form of justice as would the perpetrator. If the value of the damage were ascertained and the perpetrator made to perform services while in prison which equaled the value of the damages he cause plus the cost of maintaining him in prison, and made to pay the cost of the damages from these earnings, then perhaps there would be a closer approximation of justice. But if the perpetrator had made restitution using assets he had other than those which he acquired by working in prison then the problem would arise as to how long to

Text Box: keep him in prison since he has already made restitution. This dramatically presents the quandary faced when attempting to determine how to obtain justice beyond the point of restitution. It also dramatically displays how easy it is to slide from seeking justice and restitution, down to seeking retribution and eventually seeking to render evil for evil. There may be justice in restitution, particularly if the one to make restitution has the ability to make restitution. But there is no justice in seeking retribution. And by definition, rendering evil for evil is evil and therefore not just. Justice requires that we seek what is proper and render what is proper. If we have received unjustly we should endeavor to make restitution of or for that which we have received unjustly. This obligation on our part is just as real as our right to receive what we are justly due. But the obligation extends far beyond things and the further away from things the more difficult is meeting the obligation. By way of example, it is relatively easy to make restitution for things one takes from work, such as pens, paper clips, or photo copies. One need but replace them or if this is not practical, occasionally work during break time without being compensated for that work, since compensation has already been received in the form of pens, paper clips, and photo copies. Obviously it is easier not to take them the first place. But if the damage is to another person’s emotions how do you repair that damage? Justice demands the repair, but practicality often does not allow the repair. There are some instances where doing what is good and proper entails some harm, such as setting a broken bone. But most of our daily activities can be conducted in ways which not only do not harm but which actually render

Go to page