I believe you misunderstood the initial context. When I say "justice", I'm not talking about the connotation of "law." I?m talking about the theory that it provides seamless, universal balance. As for the law, yes, it supplies menial "elements" of order, but not unadulterated order. The world would indeed be less "orderly" without it, but the order it advocates isn't wholly culminated.Abandon4093 said:Well that's a lot of bull.LookAtYouHacker said:I still think justice is just a platform which allows people to grasp for some form of "order" in a world that has always been (and always will be) unfair. It's a fantasy we maintain (with menially realised realities,) but in my mind a fantasy none the less.
I also think people sometimes dismiss hateful emotions out of a surreptitious fear; a desire to supposedly maintain a sensation of ?rationality? though objectivity. In order words, they fear how they would respond if placed in the same situation. That's just me, anyway.
It's like a recent report of a rape victim who was temporarily removed from a courtroom; she called the rapists defendant a "*****."
An inappropriate statement in terms of regulations, but anger that is comprehendible (and should be understood) by those knowledgeable of rape.
Law does provide order. It may not always be satisfactory and it may not always be right. But it is order.
It may not be totally fair and it certainly isn't infallible but it's miles better than the alternative.
And dismissing hateful emotions has nothing to do with fear. I know how I'd react if I was raped, I know I'd want to kill the person who'd done such a thing to me (I wouldn't rape them because that offers no satisfaction for me, I would however probably take satisfaction in killing them.)
I may even end up doing just that if I was raped. That doesn't mean I don't objectively understand why that's wrong. Or why a court and trial is better in the larger picture. Only if that course of action fails is someone actually justified in taking the law into their own hands.
Perfectly understandable.
I remain obstinate in my second statement (which I notably perpetuated in a subjective context I've literally encountered such individuals; those who would fear their own behaviour in anger-inducing circumstances. That of course doesn't mean you can't remain objective and comprehend mental implications. I'm capable of doing so as well, though my tendency to submit to emotion does periodically cloud my objectivity.