11. Justice, Clear Cut

Now, according to Merriam-Webster, justice is “the administration of law” [interesting]; it is “the maintenance or administration of what is just, especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims…” [maybe objectivity]; it is “the quality of being just, impartial, or fair” [maybe like listening to differing perspectives, looking at facts, understanding context, searching for truth]; and it is listed as the “conformity to truth, fact, or reason.”

Justice is about what is right according to law and being impartial to both sides and being patient for the facts in any given situation to reveal the truth.

Justice is about being just, and just is “...being in conformity with what is morally upright or good” and “having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason.”

Justice is about reason, and reason is the ability to comprehend, infer, and think in orderly and rational ways.

Even though most of us, no matter our perceptions, can agree on what we think is right or good, it is often shaded in gray, and the gray is individually justified if it might conflict with a perception or affect an agenda. What is morally upright, what is good, what is right, is dependent upon your foundation for your life.

But back to Justice.

In order to claim to support justice, one must first allow the law to work; one must also be willing to not allow their emotions or biases or opinions or perception or personal desires to impede their reason and willfully ignore fact, thus burying the truth and halting, if not outright eliminating, true justice.

Justice, whatever the ends are of this to you, it requires law, it requires morals and good, it requires impartiality, it requires reason, and most importantly, it requires faith and patience for facts to be revealed and the truth to come to light.

Without the willingness to accept and admit facts, data, context, and truth that may conflict with one’s perception or agenda or cause, then the search for justice is marred and hidden in a fog of disarray and insincerity that only compounds the perceived issue.

If justice is what we seek, then we must admit and accept the facts and truth, not distort or ignore them; then we can be open and honest about a perception of injustice. With this honesty, we can then ask the proper questions of why and how these perceptions are there and growing, and then find the root cause and then work on fixing said perceptions of injustice. This, I think, is how we truly correct a negative perception.

We would be hard pressed to find common ground in a truth or to fix a negative fact or truth of injustice that never existed in the first place. It would be like putting a band-aid over a broken bone or picking up pennies in front of a steamroller.

Since we cannot all agree on what justice really is or should always look like, and since we may have differing foundations, and since we may not always be willing to accept fact, context, or truth over feelings, emotions, personal desires, and perception, I wonder if we might be able to understand things a little better by answering a few questions. Because these are questions I ask, and I am curious what others' answers might be.

Is it justice to defame and attack an entire group based on the actions of one or a few? If so, then should we not also apply this same “justice” to all?

Is it justice to defame an entire group because of the unlawful actions of one or a few in their perceived-to-be-reasonable actions of wanton destruction and pain caused by those few?

Is it justice for one to purposefully and willfully cause so much pain and suffering to innocents?

Is it justice for some to support the injustice of thousands of others in order to support a personal perceived justice for one?

If so, then should we also support the injustice performed on innocents if and when those innocents turn toward other innocents and perform unlawful actions of injustice themselves in order to achieve personal perceived justice for the injustice that was done to them by the injustice from the unlawful actions of destruction and pain first perceived to be justice for a perceived injustice by the first group of self-proclaimed “justice fighters” performing injustice in the name of perceived justice?

If justice, that is, the punishment of one perceived to do wrong, is what one was originally fighting for, then when the person who performed the injustice is punished, should that also be the end of the fight for that perceived justice?

Or, if justice is a correction for a morally wrong that did not happen, then how do we honestly and truthfully find a common ground and a lasting solution to correct a falsehood?

I can understand how to work together and find common ground to find a lasting solution to correct a negative perception, but can something or someone be honest and fully trusting if it has willingly embraced a misperception?

What one is fighting for, sadly, is often lost when the waters become murky because of some bad apples who turn the emotions and attention away from the peace and good toward their injustices and claim their actions of injustice are in the same name as the original perceived justice. It is muddied even more by the inaction of some of those fighting for the original perceived justice when it comes to calling out and standing against the new injustice.

Without clear communication, without a clear plan of what the desired end is hoped to be, without the acceptance of truth and fact, and without being honest about context and perception, the fighting and injustice to achieve justice becomes a burdensome load that is doomed to loop incessantly.