Justice, righteousness, truth (meaning “justice”)

How it manifests itself

How often do you meet perfectionists? Rarely? So, you can meet people who are too fair more often. In the search for justice, some people can go far and harm many. Such individuals do not know how to remain silent and want to be heard. They try to establish justice even when the matter does not concern them personally. But more often a person is outraged because his interests were hurt. The manifestation of a psychological deficiency, such as a heightened sense of justice, is manifested in intemperance of character. The individual will try to remain a winner all the time, and in order to achieve his goal, a person can go to great lengths. But a person will not break moral laws or written laws. He will always keep himself within the bounds of decency, as far as his upbringing allows him to do so. Truth and justice are always above all else for a person. The person will be offended by people who decorate their stories with fiction, as well as by those who cross the road at a red light.

Symptoms

An increased sense of justice is manifested in the feeling of certain emotions: anger, rage, sadness, melancholy. For example, while walking you noticed a fight between two boys. The older one offended the little one, but for some reason you feel hurt and sad, even though you have nothing to do with this incident. I would like to intervene and teach a lesson to an adult boy, because you cannot offend little ones.

The constant desire to achieve an order that meets your subjective requirements is the most striking symptom of a painful sense of justice.

pros

But a heightened sense of justice should not be considered a curse. Psychologists say that if you slightly adjust a person’s consciousness, severe nervousness can be relieved, and the person will stop dividing the world into black and white. After all, people who want to live fairly have their advantages.

• A person will never act badly towards another. A person will always try on someone else’s role and, thanks to this, will understand what can be done and what cannot be done.
• The person will not break the law or harm others. People with a strong sense of justice are good citizens who comply not only with government laws, but also with moral laws.
• A person who respects justice will never lie. The person will make every effort to live according to conscience and will never gossip or slander.

JUSTICE

JUSTICE is the general moral sanction of the common life of people, considered primarily from the point of view of conflicting desires, interests, and responsibilities; it concerns human relationships in all their socially significant varieties (from the interpersonal sphere to international relations). The specific subject of justice is the good and evil of coexistence within a single social space.

Aristotle distinguished between general and private (special) justice. By general justice he understood compliance with the law, the reasonableness of polis life; it can be defined as the common moral denominator of all socially ordered relations between people. Justice gives legitimacy to social actions and forms of life. It coincides with morality in its projection onto the social sphere, answers the question about the purpose and meaning of joint, united, socially ordered existence in society and the state. In its understanding, two philosophical traditions have emerged, behind which there are various social practices.

The first tradition comes from the idea of ​​cooperation. An internally differentiated and state-organized society is something more than just a condition for the survival and safe existence of individuals; it is a way of living a virtuous life, a concrete form in which individuals can realize themselves and achieve perfection. The path from a natural individual to a morally virtuous personality lies through a reasonably structured community, which, firstly, thanks to the division of labor, makes possible the existence of various sciences and arts, thereby creating an objective environment for the self-realization of individuals as virtuous individuals; secondly, it allows you to separate mental work from physical labor, to create leisure, which is a condition for the free deployment of the individual’s internal forces, a space of human eudaimonia. The state in its adequate forms (for example, the polis for ancient authors, the enlightened monarchy for Hegel) is conceived as embodied reason, an objective expression of human rationality. Accordingly, the good of the state is placed above the good of individuals. The ethical hypostatization of society and the state as objectified justice is correlated with the understanding that the guarantee of the latter is ultimately individual virtue, a just personality. The main and specific feature of a just person is the unconditional adherence to duty. She is guided by the belief “to each his own” and on this basis she not only knows how to limit herself, but also recognize the primacy of others due to their human qualities.

The second tradition of justification of justice sees in society and the state only a way of limiting, containing conflicts, and an external environment for the safe existence of a person. It is embodied most fully in the concepts of the social contract [SOCIAL CONTRACT]. These concepts are based on the hypothesis of a state of nature in which individuals have unlimited freedom, due to which they, when mutually colliding, find themselves in a situation of total dangers. The right to everything turns into the absence of any right. The state is a reasonable way out of such a state; its purpose is to guarantee the security of individuals by balancing their rights. The justice of the state in this case is measured by the well-being of individuals. The morally sanctioned social goal becomes “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” (Bentham). The moral justification of the state turns out to be at the same time its limitation, its reduction to a necessary minimum of external framework acceptable to everyone.

In this tradition, justice is understood primarily as an objective principle, a set of requirements, most often codified, the implementation of which is guaranteed by rewards and punishments. As an institutionalized set of requirements, justice presupposes and forms in individuals certain subjective abilities (primarily the ability to follow norms), but ideally it is assumed that it should function independently of the good will of people.

The first of the considered models of general justice can be called cooperative-holistic (Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Marx); its main drawback is the lack of an answer to the question of who establishes and is the subject of justice. The second model can be called conflict-individualistic (Hobbes, Locke, Kant, etc.); its main drawback is that in it the rational free individual, who is a product, the result of historical development, is considered as its prerequisite.

Special (private) justice is a morally sanctioned proportionality in the distribution of goods within a single social, state-organized space, the degree of perfection of the very method of cooperating activities and mutual balancing of conflicting interests in society and the state. In this sense, justice to a certain extent coincides with law. It is the subject of study primarily in the social sciences (as opposed to general justice, the subject of moral philosophy).

To build a theory of justice, it is essential to consider individuals as equals and living together. “What is fair in relation to another is, strictly speaking, equality (to ision),” this position formulated by Aristotle is the moral and legal basis of justice. In the ethical aspect, justice appears as equality in the dignity of being happy and having the benefits necessary for this. Therefore, any social practice of justice presupposes a certain, each time specific and historically diverse, set of goods to which all citizens initially, by the very fact of their existence, have equal access. Here the starting point and the initial normative basis of justice is the reciprocity of the golden rule of morality . In the legal aspect, justice acts as formal equality, the sameness of scale (requirements, laws, rules, norms), by which individuals are “measured” as equal subjects of law. In both morality and law, justice turns out to be equality, but significantly different. Moral (ethical) justice is the equality of infinities, people here are equal to each other insofar as each of them is unique, irreplaceable, inexhaustible in their claims and aspirations; they are equal in the same way that perfect worlds can be equal, i.e. are equal (identical) in their non-identity. Legal justice is the equality of units; it fully fits into the canons of arithmetic equality; in a certain sense, only it can be considered equality. People are equal as “co-founders” of social space. But the very act of establishment consists in legitimizing the inequality of occupations and positions that form the structure of the social space being established. The problem is the combination of equality and inequality. The extraordinary difficulty of solving it is the main source of social unrest taking place under the banner of the struggle for justice. According to Aristotle, “some believe that if they are equal relatively, then they must be equal in general; others, recognizing themselves as relatively unequal, claim the same inequality in all respects” (Pol., 301 in 35). The first of the cases typified by Aristotle implies the position of the poor, who use their civil, human equality with everyone as an argument in order to achieve equality in everything else. The second case covers the position of privileged social strata, which are trying to bring their privilege to the acquisition of civil and human privileges, as if they were privileged from the beginning, by human destiny. Both – equality in the moral and civil aspect and inequality in all other respects – are the two fundamental pillars of a socially ordered space.

There are two forms (types) of special (private) justice, identified by Aristotle and forming the supporting structure of all subsequent theories: distributive or distributive justice and equalizing or retributive justice. They represent ways of distributing scarce goods. The latter should be called private goods in contrast to common goods, which, on the contrary, by their nature cannot be divided among individuals. Therefore, justice is a way of relating a person to another person, mediated by the relationship to the goods that they both claim. The formula of justice is always a proportion between four terms, where the ratio of persons A and B is the same as the ratio of the benefits a and b received by them. A just person and a just society are those who can find a moral measure in the distribution of goods, and a measure that suits everyone and to which the consent of those who bear the most burdens can be considered moral.

Distributive justice concerns the distribution of goods, and therefore responsibilities, taking into account the dignity of persons, i.e. depending on their contribution to the common cause. There are three main historically developed principles of distributive justice: “to each the same (equally to all)”, “to each according to his deserts”, “to each according to his needs”. The first principle is archaic and, as egalitarian equality, was the fundamental beginning of primitive tribal relations, the third is oriented to the future and is a priority in social utopias (for example, communist). The defining principle for modern societies is the principle “to each according to his deserts” (typical examples are wages depending on the quantity and quality of work, distribution of awards depending on military exploits). Other principles, although secondary, are also effective today and in certain areas indispensable: for example, the distribution of the so-called. basic values ​​(human rights) are carried out according to the principle “equally for all”, and social assistance or tax benefits depending on the number of children fit the principle “to each according to his needs”.

Equalizing justice is the distribution of goods without regard to the dignity of persons. Here we are talking mainly about two types of social relations, which Aristotle called voluntary and involuntary exchange: the exchange of things and punishment. The exchange of things is considered fair when it is carried out in accordance with their actual value; such, for example, is exchange in the market, where it does not matter who buys, but only how much he pays is important. A fair assessment of punishments lies in their inevitability and the impartiality of sentencing.

Distributive justice sets the moral and regulatory foundations of social relations primarily in their communal, personally expressed aspect, and equalizing justice - in the business, objectified aspect. Particular societies usually give preference to one or another form of justice, but both forms are represented in each of them. The optimal combination of these forms, corresponding to the achieved level of development of human powers, in general and in relation to individual fragments of interhuman relations, is of decisive importance for determining the measure of justice of society.

At the center of modern ethical discussions about justice is the theory of J. Rawls, which is synthetic in nature and offers an ideal-typical model of justice in liberal democratic societies. Its normative basis is two principles: 1) each person should have equal rights to the most extensive scheme of equal fundamental liberties compatible with similar schemes of freedom for others; 2) social and economic inequalities should be so arranged that they are a) to the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged and make b) access to positions and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Reflection on justice as the ethical basis of public communication, scientific and public discussions around this concept, the very understanding of the common life of people in terms of justice is a characteristic feature of European philosophy, associated with the civilizational and cultural features of European development. The place of justice and the degree of its drama in other cultures is subject to special study.

Literature:

1. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics [V]. - Op. in 4 vols., vol. 4. M., 1983;

2. Hobbes T. Leviathan [ch. 13–15]. – Fav. prod. in 2 vols., vol. 2. M., 1965;

3. Kant I. Metaphysics of morality [part. 1]. - Op. in 6 vols., vol. 4 (2). M., 1966;

4. Rawls J. Theory of justice. Novosibirsk, 1995.

A.A.Guseinov

Source: New Philosophical Encyclopedia on Gufo.me

Meanings in other dictionaries

1. justice - See Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary
2. justice - JUSTICE, and, g. 1. see fair. 2. Fair treatment of someone, impartiality. Sense of justice. Do what is fair. • To give justice to someone (bookish) to recognize for someone. kakien. dignity, rightness, give due. Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary
3. justice - • absolute ~ Dictionary of Russian Idioms
4. justice - JUSTICE, fairness, plural. no, female 1. abstract noun to fair. Justice of the action. The truth of the rumors. 2. Impartiality, fair treatment of someone or something. Maintain justice. Violate justice. Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary
5. Justice is one of the highest principles of mutual relations between people. In the idea, S. Spencer distinguishes two elements. Its positive element lies in the recognition of every person’s right to unhindered activity and to enjoy those benefits... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron
6. justice - justice w. 1. Distraction noun according to adj. fair 1. 2. Fair treatment of someone or something; impartiality. Explanatory Dictionary by Efremova
7. justice - Justice, justice, justice, justice, justice, justice, justice, justice, justice, justice, justice, justice Zaliznyak's Grammar Dictionary
8. justice - spelling justice, -and Lopatin's Spelling Dictionary
9. justice - JUSTICE -i; and. 1. to Fair. C. decisions. S. proposals. S. rumors. Understand, realize p. reproaches smb. 2. An impartial, fair attitude towards someone or something. Sense of justice. Do what is fair. Violate... Kuznetsov's Explanatory Dictionary
10. justice - Fairness/. Morphemic-spelling dictionary
11. justice - noun, number of synonyms... Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language
12. JUSTICE - JUSTICE - English. justice; German Gerechtigkeit. The concept of what should be, containing the requirement of correspondence between the practical role of various individuals (social strata, groups) in the life of society and their social. Sociological Dictionary
13. justice - -i, f. 1. Property by value. adj. fair. Fairness of the decision. Fairness of offers. □ Pierre, in a trembling, intermittent voice, began to provide evidence of the truth of his testimony. L. Tolstoy, War and Peace. Small academic dictionary
14. JUSTICE - JUSTICE is a category of moral, legal and socio-political consciousness, the concept of what should be, associated with historically changing ideas about inalienable human rights. Large encyclopedic dictionary
15. justice - To give justice to someone (book) - to fairly admit something. for someone, to pay tribute to someone. ► Although he is a crappy little man, he is hospitable, to be fair. Chekhov. Volkova's Phraseological Dictionary
16. Justice is the general moral sanction of people living together. S. is viewed primarily from the angle of conflicting desires, interests, and responsibilities. Specific subject... Pedagogical terminological dictionary
17. Justice is the concept of what is proper, corresponding to certain ideas about the essence of man and his inalienable rights. S. is a category of moral and legal, as well as socio-political consciousness. So, the concept... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
18. justice - JUSTICE - INJUSTICE Justice of the decision - injustice of the decision. Social justice is social injustice. ○ - You will offend too many people! - What is it? - Injustice... - This justice was given to man!... Dictionary of antonyms of the Russian language
19. justice - Give justice Abramov's Dictionary of Synonyms

• Blog
• Jerzy Lec
• Contacts
• Terms of use

© 2005—2020 Gufo.me

Minuses

But still, a heightened sense of justice is a kind of disease. A person who cannot accept the imperfections of this world will suffer. In life, most people break the law, defend their rights and try to change the usual way of things. What are the character flaws of people with a heightened sense of justice?

• A person cannot argue with others. The conflict must always be resolved peacefully by finding a compromise. But a person who puts justice above all else lives without compromise. A person cannot agree with the opinion of another person if he does not consider her ideal.
• A person who loves justice will inform on everyone he knows. He will present information not in the form of gossip, but in the form of statements of facts. But it’s difficult to call such a process pleasant.
• Touchiness is a problem for all people who cannot come to terms with the imperfections of the world. People are dissatisfied with their friends, colleagues, acquaintances, and sometimes a person can even be offended by the weather conditions. Rapid mood swings make a person an unpleasant person.

Social justice: what is it? And what do you eat it with?

Author Lyubov Savitskaya

08.04.2005 11:04

Economy

It would seem that “justice” is a completely obvious concept. So it is, but not quite. In every society and civilization, among different peoples and at different times, this concept has its own, special meaning. Isn’t this what the famous Ukrainian proverb is about: “Every house has its own truth!”? Is this why so often people and entire nations do not understand each other? Many political parties play their game around the concept of “justice,” directly moaning about the fact that they are fighters for “social justice,” and include this definition in their names and key slogans.

That is why I want to say my word about social justice.

1. The emergence of the concept of justice

JUSTITIA (Latin) - justice, legality. I immediately remember the ancient Roman goddess of justice with a blindfold and scales in her hands. So what is weighed on these scales and how?

“JUSTICE, a category of moral-legal and socio-political consciousness, the concept of what is proper, associated with historically changing ideas about INABILINEABLE HUMAN RIGHTS. Contains a requirement for correspondence between the real significance of various individuals (social groups) and their social status, between their rights and responsibilities, between action and retribution, labor and reward, crime and punishment, etc. Inconsistency in these relations is assessed as injustice” (Big Encyclopedic Dictionary).

And one more, shorter definition: “FAIR - acting impartially, corresponding to the TRUTH.” Other key concepts appear in the characterization of justice: HUMAN RIGHTS INALIENARY, TRUTH. Is there any reason to talk about justice before the advent of Humanity and Society? The Roman philosopher Helvetius argued: “From the moment when people begin to distinguish pleasure from pain, when they experience evil and cause evil, there is already some concept of justice.”

Karl Marx argued that “to speak of ‘natural justice’ is nonsense.” Another classic, Friedrich Engels, agreed with him: “The idea of ​​eternal justice is changing... not only depending on time and place: it is not the same even among different persons and belongs to those things by which everyone understands something different.” And further: “Justice is always only an ideologized, heavenly expression of existing economic relations, either from their conservative or from their revolutionary side.”

Here it would be appropriate to cite the definition of this concept by the famous “guru” of American social psychology J. Meyers (1997) from the glossary to his famous work “Social Psychology”: “Equity” is a state in which the “income” of each participant from the relationship proportional to its “contribution”. Please note that fairness does not always mean equal “income” (end quote).

In modern Western political philosophy and sociology, John Rawls’s work “A Theory of Justice” is widely known, in which a conceptual attempt is made to present “justice as fairness”. That is, the emergence of the concept of justice is associated with the emergence of Society, with the socialization of man, his transformation from an animal into Homo Sapience, from a herd (crowd), in which “everyone is for himself, one God is for everything,” into an individual, then into a team and further - into a team in which “one for all and all for one.”

Man, as a biosocial being, with the emergence of his second, social hypostasis, ceases to be simply a part of Nature, but becomes an independent force operating in it, commensurate with geological processes with the Creator themselves. With the advent of Homo Sapience and the creation of Society, according to V.I. Vernadsky’s definition, the Noosphere (Sphere of Reason) arises. The eternal debate is about which hypostasis predominates in Man: natural (animal) or social? Is the relationship between these two hypostases set once and for all or is it subject to change? How is the emergence, existence and development of the concept of justice in general and social justice in particular related to this?

2. The concept of “social”: civilizational context

In Western social psychology (Meyers D., 1997) it is clearly recognized that in the civilizations of the West and the East, even before the Great Geographical Discoveries and associated colonial conquests, fundamentally different in meaning characteristics of the concept “SOCIAL” had developed.

In ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, which were the cradle of medieval Western civilization, an individualistic stereotype of behavior was formed, which determined the priority of personal goals over the interests of a certain social group and, as a result, self-identification based on personal attributions, and not through identifying oneself with the group.

Traditional Eastern civilizations give preference to collective values, which take precedence over individual interests, while a person of the East identifies himself, first of all, with a certain society.

Hence, historically there have been two approaches to the definition of HUMAN RIGHTS:

• Western, proclaimed as allegedly universal human values, recorded in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, adopted by the UN in 1948 on the initiative of the Western powers - winners of the Second World War, and professed by the so-called golden billion of humanity, and

• Eastern, to which the rest of humanity belongs, most of whom do not even know about the existence of Western “human rights” and, most importantly, are unlikely to need them.

After the Second World War, the Western paradigm of HUMAN RIGHTS with its GENERAL HUMAN VALUES became the most powerful aggressive ideological weapon of the self-proclaimed “free world”, a means of spiritual and cultural enslavement of the peoples of other civilizations. In defining the concept of social justice/injustice in this way, there are two polar approaches that form a dialectical pair that exists in the unity and struggle of opposites.

The Western approach, which is still dominant, proceeds from the fact that inequality as such is an attributable property of human society. Moreover, inequality is a powerful incentive for social transformation, for the development of individuals, social groups and the state as a whole, and equality (the notorious “equalization”, which is talked about so much in Ukraine in connection with the pension reform) is stagnation, dependency, is detrimental to progress. As a consequence of this position, egoism (...which for some reason is called extremely healthy) is an ineradicable feature of a person, and therefore one must adapt to it, forming a society for it. And human abilities that are unequal by nature exclude absolute equality in society and, moreover, in principle make it unfair. Hence the well-known thesis that “everyone for himself, one God for all.” In its most general form, this is a statement that in the biosocial nature of a person, certain of his biological, more precisely, egoistic, animal properties are dominant, and acquired social ones are secondary. In essence, this is a statement about the eternal dominance of Nature over Society, the reduction of Man from the level of the Creator to the level of one of the many living creations of Nature, where the strong eat the weak.

The Eastern approach, which actively struggles with varying degrees of success for its assertion, proceeds from the fact that equality as such from birth in society is an attributable property of human society. In the biosocial nature of Man, in the case of proper upbringing and control, his social rather than animal hypostasis predominates, so that society in Man not only can, but is also obliged to cultivate noble altruism as opposed to animal grasping instincts. Hence the well-known thesis “one for all and all for one” as an example to follow for the entire human community, and not just a few heroes from the novel by Alexandre Dumas.

In essence, this is a statement about the eternal struggle and elevation of Man and Society over Nature, for the humanization of Nature, the elevation of Man from the level of one of her many living creations to the level of the Creator himself.

In political science, these two views in the 19th century found their justification in the works of two famous contemporaries: the founder of scientific anti-communism, the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, and the founder of scientific communism, the German philosopher Karl Marx. Later, J.M. Keynes, one of the political science “gurus” for modern philosophers and economists, argued that humanity supposedly always chooses between “unequal distribution of wealth” (capitalism) and “equal distribution of poverty” (communism).

As is usual for all economists and philosophers who profess the first of these approaches to justify the admissibility of social injustice, these Keynesian statements convey the false message that under capitalism only wealth is distributed - albeit not for everyone, but for the majority (primarily the so-called average class), and under communism there is only poverty for everyone.

By the way, the distribution of what wealth and what poverty? After all, there are material and spiritual wealth. Yes, under capitalism, enormous material wealth is distributed among the citizens of the countries of the “golden billion” of humanity, which are created not only by their own labor, but also through the unequal exchange of the free labor of 4-5 billion Asians and Africans, and the own spiritual poverty of the “free world” imposed on all humanity.

And under communism, ideally, there is an “equal distribution of material wealth” created by one’s own, non-borrowed labor for everyone, and not poverty, as Keynesy’s followers absolutely vilely claim, and a distribution according to the needs of national and universal spiritual and cultural wealth.

3. American heretic economist Herman Daly on social justice

One of the social heretics of the “free world” is the famous American economist Herman Daly, professor of economics at the University of Maryland. From 1988-94, he served as Chief Economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank. He argues that a sustainable economy "needs less environmental resources, but much more moral resources." In his last work published in Ukraine, “After Growth. Economic theory of sustainable development" (Kyiv, Intelsfera, 2002) a significant part is devoted to issues of ethics and social justice. As an apologist for his society, Herman Daly sees its shortcomings and tries to offer a prescription for eliminating them: “We should strive to achieve sufficient wealth per capita, which could be efficiently allocated, maintained and fairly distributed among the maximum number of people who could be kept under such conditions for a long time.”

What does "sufficient wealth" mean? What does it mean to “distribute fairly”? Why among the “maximum number of people” and not all?

Herman Daly examines the concept of “equitable distribution” most fully. His analysis includes ethical ideas of the Old and New Testaments, Protestantism and modern American society. He advocates the legislative use of the principle of limited inequality and against the principle of unfair, from his point of view, forced equality. The principle of limited inequality is that the ratio between maximum and minimum income does not exceed 10 (at most 20). As a son of his society, Peter Daly understands that when this coefficient approaches 100, the bonds of society are broken and then the class struggle begins.

Therefore, he “rings all the bells” in connection with the ever-increasing inequality in the distribution of income in American society. If in 1960 the average salary of managers after taxes was only 12 times higher than the average salary of an ordinary factory worker, then in 1974 this figure rose to 35, and in 1995 it had already reached 135! It is curious that even in Congress there was a politician (Martin Szabo from Minnesota) who made a quixotic attempt to pass the Fair Income Act. The law proposed limiting the amount of executive salaries that can be deducted from pre-tax corporate income to no more than 25 times the salary of the lowest paid full-time employee of the corporation. Of course, this law was not adopted.

4. Sustainable development of humanity: is it possible and under what conditions?

Here it would be appropriate to mention the long-known conclusions from the Concept of Sustainable Development of Humanity. The population of the countries of the “golden billion” of humanity (North America and Western Europe), belonging to the Western, Euro-Atlantic civilization, consume natural resources that belong to all Mankind from God - 5-7 times more and dump waste into the environment - in 7-10 times more than the rest of Humanity's 5 billion people! And if all other countries and peoples wanted to consume natural resources at the same level as the “golden billion” now consumes (... and isn’t this fair from a social point of view?), then in a few decades all known natural resources, first of all, the reserves of oil and gas and coal explored at accessible depths will be exhausted... The obese capitalist economy, which is based on large corporations eager for quick and hot money for themselves, is unable to implement large-scale geological exploration programs at great depths of the earth's crust, as it was in the USSR. Hence the panic about the depletion of natural resources, characteristic of the capitalist world-economy.

Taking into account this circumstance, the Concept of Sustainable Development of Humanity, widely advertised at the international level, arose, the essence of which is to limit the consumption of natural resources by all countries and peoples to the prevailing modern levels of consumption. That is, the rich consume as much natural resources as they are accustomed to, and the poor - as much as rich countries allow them. “Cuiqve suum” (To each his own), as the Romans said. This is what social justice as understood by the rich and social injustice as understood by the poor consists. Can human development be considered sustainable under such conditions? The question is rhetorical, the answer is obvious, even for bourgeois political scientists.

That is why, back in 1992, at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, a recommendation was made on the need for a more equitable distribution of wealth: the technologically developed rich countries of the North had to contribute 0.7% of GNP to the UN fund annually for subsequent distribution among the poor countries of the South. 10 years passed, in September 2002, the next Earth Summit was held in Johannesburg, at which the fact was recorded: “But things are still there...” It was again the leader of the “free world”, the United States, who was the first to torpedo such a noble initiative. Because he doesn’t have enough money to fight “international terrorism.”

Yuriy Solomatin, People's Deputy of Ukraine

Topics pension fund

Discuss

Causes

Some may think that being a fighter for justice is an honorable mission. But if you look into a person’s soul, it becomes clear that he does not want justice out of the best intentions.

• Envy. A person who cannot come to terms with the injustice of the world is very envious. A person does not understand why he works with everyone equally, but receives less benefits than others. Or he may be dissatisfied with the fact that he works with a friend on equal terms, but for some reason his friend receives large bonuses and is awarded various privileges. These thoughts haunt me.
• Anger. No people are perfect, and you shouldn’t expect to like everyone around you without exception. It is quite normal to meet individuals who arouse antipathy in your soul. And if a normal person simply admits that someone is unpleasant to him, then a person with a heightened sense of justice will be angry with himself for not being able to love an unpleasant type.
• Resentment. Eternal grievances towards others lead to the fact that a person begins to think that the world is unfair towards him. It seems to him that those around him live better and receive more benefits from this life.
• Guilt. A person who blames himself for other people's troubles will never become happy. People who are too fair cannot live normally, because something will confuse them all the time.

Types of justice

Starting with Aristotle, it is customary to distinguish two types of justice[8]:

1. Equalizing
   - refers to the relations of equal people regarding objects (“equal - for equal”).
   It does not relate directly to people, but to their actions, and requires equality (equivalence) of labor and payment, the value of a thing and its price, harm and its compensation[8]. Relations of equalizing justice require the participation of at least two persons [ source not specified 1325 days
   ].
2. Distributive
   - requires proportionality in relation to people according to one or another criterion (“equal to equal, unequal to unequal”, “to each his own”)[8].
   Distributive justice relationships require the participation of at least three people, each of whom acts to achieve one goal within an organized community. One of these people, the distributor, is the “boss” [ source not specified 1325 days
   ].

Equalizing justice is a specific principle of private law, while distributive justice is a principle of public law, which is the set of rules of the state as an organization [ source not specified 1325 days

].

The requirements of egalitarian and distributive justice are formal

, without defining who should be considered equal or different, and without specifying which rules to apply to whom.
Different answers to these questions are given by different concepts of justice
, which complement the formal concept of justice with substantive requirements and values ​​[
source not specified 1325 days
].

The problem must be looked for in childhood

How can people who suffer from a heightened sense of justice live? A person needs to do some self-analysis or go to a psychotherapist. He needs to find out the root of the problem and understand how long ago justice became an obsession. Perhaps the child has already lived without compromise since childhood, or perhaps obsessions began to arise at school, when parents compared the child with the rest of the children in the class. First you need to find the root of the problem, and then find the person who planted the root and fertilized it. Without the support of an adult, an exaggerated sense of justice would not have grown in the soul.

All kids divide the world into black and white, but as they grow up, they must understand that there are intermediate tones, like gray, which help make life interesting and unusual. People who recognize only good and evil do not get along well in this world. Therefore, having discovered a problem in your mind and having understood when the problem arose there, you need to gradually teach yourself to see in the world around you not two colors, but also different variations of these colors.

Justice, righteousness, truth (meaning “justice”)

I. THE CONCEPT OF JUSTICE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

A. GOD'S JUSTICE
1)

in the Bible
understanding, the actions of a person acting in accordance with the law were considered fair. with his obligations to God and people. G. von Rad conveys the meaning of the word "justice" ( tzedakah
) as "loyalty to the community." God's S. is manifested primarily in His attitude towards Israel, in His covenant with it. By recognizing God's S. (Ps. 21:32; Ps. 36:7; Ps. 70:19.24; Ps. 88, etc.), Israel thereby recognizes that God has always been faithful to His promises. Therefore He is called “the righteous Lord” (2 Chron. 12:6; Ps. 145:17; Deut. 32:4; 1 Ezra 9:15; ⇒ Faith);

2)

God's S. manifests itself in three aspects. First, a righteous God grants people the legitimacy of law. This right underlies the entire covenant—the Law that Israel is obligated to follow. Secondly, God's S. is manifested in His intervention in the internal. the life of the chosen people, which is necessary for the fulfillment of the promises He made and for the accomplishment of the work of salvation (Isa. 41:10). Therefore, for the Old Testament righteous, God is the stronghold and guarantee of their salvation (Ps. 71:2.15.19.24). In His S. the Lord confronts the wicked; by carrying out punishment, He promotes the conversion of sinners (Job 34:10–12; Ps. 96:13; Isa. 59:17). Thirdly, God's S. is manifested in His intervention in the history of the Hebrews. people: Israel constantly felt God's help in the fight against an external enemy. It was on her that the righteous placed their hope in difficult times, and it was thanks to this help that Israel emerged victorious from the most difficult situations (see 2 Kings 6:8). Isaiah's prophecies are full of sincere hope for God's help, which will lead the righteous out of darkness and bring them salvation (Is. 51:5; Is. 56:1);

3)

God's S. can also be called God's faithfulness (to the Covenant), His truth, mercy and love. God's providence is aimed at the salvation of His people, and the Lord accomplishes this salvation with judgment and mercy, in love and wrath, healing and striking. Carrying out His S., the Lord punishes and has mercy, saves and destroys.

B. HUMAN RIGHTEOUSNESS

Righteousness (justice) of a person is to act accordingly. with God's commandments (Deut. 6:25). Man demonstrates his righteousness by fulfilling God's will (the Law). Of course, "righteousness" depends largely on God's will; how little it is connected with normative acts of behavior is evidenced by a peculiar paradox when, on the one hand, it is said that for God “there is not one who does good,” “there is not a righteous man on earth” (Ps. 13:1–3 ; Ps. 143:2; Ecc. 7:20), and on the other hand, that some people are still righteous, living according to God's Law (Ps. 36:30). The fact that righteousness is not a purely legal concept is also evidenced by the fact that Job, realizing and not denying his sinfulness (Job 9:2; Job 14:4), not only expects God to recognize his righteousness before Him face (Job 13:18; Job 16:20; Job 17:8), but also gains this recognition (Job 42:7). The righteousness of a godly man does not lie in his morals. perfection, but in his attitude towards God, in his God-fearing behavior and in his trust in God (Ps. 32:5; Ps. 35:11; Ps. 103:17; Ps. 111:1). A person's righteousness is expressed in his readiness for humility; but because sin constantly gets in his way, he often needs to re-gain righteousness, which is only possible through ⇒ forgiveness. By admitting his guilt and repenting, a person again takes the righteous path (Ps. 50:4-14). The righteous person relies on God's providence and thereby, despite the sin committed, finds justification in God's S. (Ps. 103:6; Ps. 124:3; Ps. 129:4). ⇒ Justification.

B. RIGHTEOUSNESS AND SELF-KNOWLEDGE

The self-esteem of the righteous found in some places in the OT is significant (Job 27:6; Ps. 17:21.24). “Judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and my integrity in me” (Ps. 7:9). Such a person’s assessment of his own. righteousness is based on a sincere desire for perfect obedience to God and the fulfillment of God's Law. Some prophets speak out against man's overestimation of his own. righteousness. Any people they consider efforts futile, but human. imperfect righteousness (Isa. 64:5; Dan. 9:18); they realize that only in the Lord will the entire race of Israel be justified (Isa. 45:24).

D. JUSTICE AS A GUARANTEE OF SALVATION

The more clearly the prophets, and especially Isaiah, realized the imperfection of man. righteousness and sin of Israel (Is. 43:26; Is. 48:1; Is. 53:11; Is. 57:12; Is. 58:2; Is. 59:4, etc.), the more clearly they understood that the covenant of God with His people, given by God's grace, is the fruit of God's S. It is in His S. that all hope should be placed (Isa. 45:8.23). The one for whom God stands up will be justified, and therefore the prophets trust in God’s S., saving from all adversity and restoring the righteousness of Israel (Isa. 40:1; Isa. 51:17; Isa. 54:7; Isa. 60:17 ; Isa. 61:1). God's S. is the main condition for salvation. Later, this idea was developed in the epistles of St. Paul, which gives a new understanding of man's righteousness before the face of God.

II. THE CONCEPT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

A. IN BOOKS NOT BELONGING TO AP. PAVLU

In the books of the New Testament, which do not belong to the author of the ap. Paul, the word “righteousness” appears a total of 34 times (55 times in Paul’s letters). The ideas about righteousness here are close to the Old Testament understanding. Righteousness is godly behavior consistent with God's will and a God-commanded life of love (1 John 3:7; Rev. 22:11). Blessed is he who suffers for his righteousness, like the ancient prophets and righteous people who were persecuted by the wicked (Matthew 5:10; 1 Peter 3:14); suffering “provides peaceful fruit of righteousness” to those who are “learned through it” (Heb. 12:11). “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33). The power that nourishes righteousness in a person lies in his connection with God, since “He bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we, having been freed from sins, should live for righteousness” (1 Peter 2:24). He who hungers and thirsts for God's righteousness is promised satiety (Matthew 5:6); the persecuted righteous are promised consolation - “a new heaven and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13); The world is also promised that God will execute His judgment on the universe in righteousness (Acts 17:31).

B. IN THE EPISTLES OF AP. PAVLA

1)

righteousness based on faith. Righteousness is first and foremost a life-defining relationship with God. A person’s righteousness cannot be judged only by his external piety, which is nothing more than formal observance of the Law and feigned humility. A person's ideas about his own. righteousness, which is always relative, does not allow him to deeply perceive God's S., and he inevitably begins to neglect it. This danger was clearly seen by Paul, a Pharisee, who “in his former life” strictly followed the dictates of the Law (Phil. 3:4) and perceived righteousness as a God-deserved reward for “impeccable” behavior. However, after Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1), Paul realized that “those who live according to the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8) and that only a new person in Christ can be righteous ( Eph. 4:24). The law and its adherence cannot justify a person. The Law does not save from sin (Gal. 3:19), but only reveals to man what sin is (Rom. 3:20). “Those who rely on the works of the law are under a curse,” and not under God’s righteousness (Gal. 3:10). “Christ became for us... righteousness” (1 Cor. 1:30), because “He [God] made him who knew no sin to be sin in our place, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5 – NT translation, ed. Bishop Cassian). Righteousness is God's gift in Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:17), not a reward for keeping the Law. Thanks to the fact that Christ took our sins upon Himself, we are now justified before God, although we still live in the flesh and, therefore, in a world of sin. This righteousness is made real through ⇒ faith, and the whole saving mission of Jesus Christ must also be understood through faith. Therefore, Paul calls man's righteousness before God “the righteousness of faith,” “the righteousness of faith” (Rom. 4:9.11.13; Rom. 9:30; Rom. 10:4.6; Gal. 5, etc.). In faith a person is justified before God except. by the grace of God, in the name of Christ;

2)

new righteousness and christ. ethics. Ap. During his lifetime, Paul was reproached for the fact that in his teaching about man. righteousness lacks morals. element: “And should we not do evil so that good may come out, as some slander us and say that we teach this way? The judgment against such is just” (Rom. 3:8; cf. Rom. 6:1). These reproaches are unfair. For Paul morals. the element is not in the Law. The basis of morality is faith. If we have died to sin through faith in Christ, how can we then live in it (Rom. 6:2)! Believing in Christ, being in Christ, being imbued with His Spirit - all this means only one thing: the desire to be pleasing to the Lord (2 Cor. 5:9). Paul earnestly calls us to righteousness (Rom. 6:13.16.18-20; Rom. 9:30; 2 Cor. 9:10; Eph. 4:24, etc.). But, unlike the Old Testament authors, the apostle calls people to righteousness not because God is faithful to His covenant, but because He revealed His S. in Jesus Christ. Believers should accept this S. with gratitude and not boast of their acquired righteousness before God.

Learn to relax

Do you know a heightened sense of justice? What should a person who wants to get rid of such a character trait do? The simplest and most effective option is to learn to relax. Which people screw themselves up more than others? Those who are constantly worried about something. Let go of the situation if you cannot change it. Take it for granted that you have no control over everything that happens in this world. From time to time you need to let your affairs take their course and trust the further development of events in the universe.

By letting go of your problems, a person gains a sense of peace of mind. A similar feeling appears when the head is free from extraneous thoughts. A similar effect can be achieved through meditation or using one of its techniques, namely focusing on breathing. Try to live consciously and understand how your thoughts arise. Understanding the reason for your own dissatisfaction, it will be easier for you to deal with it.

Everyone wants justice, but they understand it differently

What place does the request for justice occupy in the hierarchy of social demands of the Russian population?
Vladimir Rimsky:

He is undoubtedly the leader. This is evidenced by the results of a study conducted by the INDEM Foundation during 2013 - 2015. The research methods were desktop analysis of previously taken measurements, expert interviews, focus groups and a mass questionnaire survey of citizens using a representative Russian sample. The results of this study were compared with those obtained by the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in a nationwide sociological study of the dreams and goals in the lives of Russian citizens. The comparison showed that justice is an important dream in Russian society, and citizens expect the state to realize this dream. At the same time, citizens understand that the state itself is unjust and therefore unable to guarantee justice. Of the slogans that best express the personal dreams of Russian citizens about the future of the country, the slogan “social justice, equal rights for everyone, a strong state that cares about its citizens” received the largest number of supporters, namely 45 percent. Other slogans turned out to be much less significant for the majority. In particular, each of the slogans about democracy and freedom of personal expression, about returning Russia to the status of a great power and about ensuring stability in society was supported by approximately a quarter of respondents. The remaining slogans did not receive even a fifth of support.

Do Russian citizens have a common understanding of justice or does everyone understand it in their own way?

Vladimir Rimsky:

There is no single understanding of justice, and it is hardly possible. What is considered fair and what is unfair - each social group has its own opinion on this matter. But at the same time, everyone wants justice. I did not have a chance to talk with rich people, representatives of big business, they are generally closed for interviews, but, according to some information, they also have a desire for justice and their own ideas, for example, about how to fairly distribute government orders. I'm not even talking about the poor, who are most concerned about justice, and if they come to complain to the authorities, they often directly state: “I want justice for myself.” The understanding of justice depends on the family in which a person was raised, what education he has, how much he earns, and how he spends his leisure time. But there will never be justice “for everyone” because everyone wants different things.

What, judging by surveys, does our citizens perceive as fair and what is unfair?

Vladimir Rimsky:

People almost never justify justice with rational arguments. In specific situations, citizens determine what is fair and what is unfair intuitively, based on their own social experience, which is different for everyone. Rational arguments sometimes appear when people present their understanding of general principles of justice. For example, in statements that the state must provide its citizens with equality of rights and opportunities. Or that it is obliged to support the poor and sick. Our citizens justify these principles quite rationally. But even when reaching agreement on some general principles of justice, people are unable to apply them in specific conflict situations and agree on justice among themselves.

Our people feel that neither judges nor prosecutors have such a goal to resolve the issue fairly

Do citizens think our society is unfair?

Vladimir Rimsky:

In general, yes. But Russia is no exception here. In many even very prosperous countries, people feel the injustice of the world order. In our case, especially in the socio-economic sphere. But our desire for justice in this area, of course, is much further from realization than, for example, in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. There this desire is more often realized.

When talking about justice, do your focus group participants mean social justice?

Vladimir Rimsky:

First of all, her. And at the same time they believe that we will not achieve justice. Nowhere and in nothing. Our citizens consider the long waits in queues for hospitalization in public medicine, the lack of help and sympathy from officials and medical staff towards cancer patients, to be unfair. And, of course, in medicine, many people consider it unfair that rich citizens can get the treatment they need for their own money, but the poor cannot always get it in state medicine. Many consider refusals to admit children to kindergartens to be unfair, even when these refusals are “correct by law.” It is also unfair that many families in our country still live in dilapidated housing and that we have defrauded real estate shareholders. Our citizens believe that it is unfair when the police do nothing to protect them, and do not even always accept reports from citizens about crimes, for example, thefts. We were given a lot of such examples of injustice during focus groups. And, of course, most of all, injustice is visible in income, well-being, and standard of living. Because our rich people don’t want to live the way a millionaire lives, say, in Sweden—drive a small car, live in a modest country house, wear an inexpensive suit. We have everything on display. And people are very annoyed by this.

But it seems to me, no, it’s not annoying. According to surveys, the majority of Russian citizens do not read the annual income statements of officials. It would seem that the higher the steadily growing well-being of the ruling class, the keener the attention of the masses should be to the property and income of its prominent representatives. But no, the dependence turned out to be the opposite. And, it seems to me, this is why: the material wealth of important people is such that it simply does not fit into the head of the Russian average person. And most importantly, the presence of palaces, yachts, and landowners’ estates does not incriminate anyone of anything. Our citizens believe that having all this is the legal privilege of any boss. That in this sense everything is “fair”.

Vladimir Rimsky:

Yes, people rarely publicly express their outrage at this state of affairs. But in focus groups they talk more freely and openly. And there we often hear that such a gap between wealth and poverty, like ours, is completely unacceptable, and that this is a monstrous injustice.

Try breaking your own rules from time to time

A fair person lives by the rules that he has come up with for himself. From time to time you need to step back from the foundations and test their strength. What can be violated and what cannot? You can be guided not by someone else’s instructions, but by your own common sense. For example, a driver with a keen sense of justice may constantly judge people who do not drive according to the rules. Such a person needs to come up with a new road entertainment. Instead of spoiling his nerves, he can start listening to audiobooks or learning foreign languages ​​in special courses designed for oral perception of information. Such a restructuring forces a person’s brain to perceive a familiar situation differently. A person will become more tolerant of the people around him and will treat those who break the law with greater understanding.

“Mercy in heaven, justice in hell, but what happens on earth”: Is justice possible?

One intelligent general is credited with the idea that

if you want to make everyone quarrel, start uniting everyone.

An excessive desire to make friends with everyone, to unite everyone, to reconcile everyone and not paying attention to the reality of human life is a direct path to hostility, disunity and irreconcilability. This path is all the more disastrous the more unreasonable efforts are put into it.

Paraphrasing and transferring this idea to the concept of justice, it can be argued that

If you demand equal justice for everyone in human society, you will definitely quarrel with everyone.

Is there any justice at all (for everyone)?

Justice in general, just like a person in general, outside of the practical context and personal characteristics is something elusive and even less describable.

For some, one thing will be fair, for others it will be completely opposite.

Some believe that they are paid too little for their work, others are sure that too much taxes are taken from their earnings, others will believe that it is unfair to work for such a salary at all, and are not going to pay taxes at all.

Stubborn oppositionists believe that they are unfairly not allowed into power. Although, from their point of view, they would have shown how to rule correctly, not like the current “pygmies”.

Cunning but difficult bankers see injustice in the fact that they are not given all the country’s money to manage. They know a lot about money better than anyone and would squeeze the maximum profit out of it for themselves.

The simple, but in their own way cunning, poor can see the injustice in the fact that for some reason they have to work at all. Or that they are paid little, often without any dependence on the effort they put in.

A. Chubais. Photo: www.globallookpress.com

People like Chubais are convinced that everyone should be grateful to them. Both those who were invited to participate in the loans-for-shares auctions and those who were not invited to them. Simply based on his self-perception of his reformation “divinity”, as the founding father of the “free market”, who created an incredible “good deed” for the country.

The remaining criminals already in prison can quite sincerely believe that they were unfairly convicted and for some reason sent to serve their sentences. Although they themselves are either innocent and were framed or slandered, or the crimes did not depend on them in any way, but were “programmed” by cruel social reality and were committed under the weight of insurmountable circumstances.

Even prostitutes may be unhappy that, at the instigation of President Putin, they are called “socially irresponsible women.” Many of them, and especially the organizers of their “services,” are inclined to legalize their “business,” become “socially responsible” and pay taxes.

In a word, as many people as there are, there are so many private “justices” that are completely, absolutely inconsistent with each other without serious social upheavals.

Christian approach: three types of justice

The Christian approach to justice, like Christianity itself, which preaches Christ crucified, “is a temptation for the Jews, and madness for the Greeks.” Sacrifice in the name of love, self-restraint of one’s desires are incomprehensible to the modern world and for many are read as “temptation” and “madness.”

The patristic understanding of justice is best expounded by St. Maximus the Confessor (580–662):

People who have reasoning about Divine things divide justice into three types: human, angelic and Divine. What is human justice ? This is an equal distribution of the sensual goods of this world and benevolence towards others . What is angelic justice ? This is a generous gift of Divine knowledge . What is Divine justice ? This is suffering for those who fall into sin .

An essential goal-setting key to the characteristics of these different justices is given by Rev. Maxim is his following statement:

The Lord planned to accomplish our Salvation through opposites: to give us life through death, and glory through dishonor... This meant: “Follow My plan and do not try to understand it through human justice!”

(St. Maximus the Confessor. Three types of justice, or justice and justice).

Venerable Maximus the Confessor. Photo: pravoslavie.ru

The highest justice therefore manifests itself in our earthly world under the guise of what many seem to be injustice. Humanly understood justice, as a synonym for equality and striving in its ultimate utopian goal, first of all, to the same amount of money in all pockets in the world, is the path to discord, wars and revolutions.

Treating different people differently

For those who are dissatisfied with reality, the demands of human justice in relation to oneself most often end in obvious injustice in relation to others. Moreover, his own sense of achieved justice will be directly opposite to the sense of injustice among those around him. He is happy, the others are not.

The problem with the understanding of justice becomes more acute as human society becomes less Christian in spirit.

In this regard, it is useful to listen to Ivan Ilyin’s arguments about the roots of these problems.

He wrote:

The French Revolution of the eighteenth century proclaimed and spread the harmful prejudice that men are by birth or nature “equal” and that, as a result, all people should be treated “equally”... This prejudice of natural equality is the main obstacle to the solution of our basic problem. For the essence of justice consists precisely in the unequal treatment of unequal people.

If people were truly equal, that is, identical in body, soul and spirit, then life would be terribly simple and finding justice would be extremely easy. One would only have to say: “the same people get the same share” or “everyone gets the same share” - and the issue would be resolved. Then justice could be found arithmetically and carried out mechanically; and everyone would be happy, because people would really be like equal atoms, like balls mechanically rolling from place to place, indistinguishably identical both internally and externally. What could be more naive, simplified and vulgar than this theory?

(Ivan Ilyin. The Singing Heart. The Book of Quiet Contemplations. About Justice).

I. Ilyin. Photo: vk.com

But all modern democratic societies today are built on this theory. This is all the more strange because the ancient Greek polis democracies, whose ideals of “democracy” were looked upon with admiration by French philosophers, German socialists and Russian communists... were slaveholding societies. Every free citizen of the Greek city-states who participated in elections and sat in public assemblies was served by several completely unfree and powerless slaves. It is no less characteristic that the first republic that appeared after the birth of Christ, in the USA, was also slave-owning...

Justice in democracy is blind, like the judicial Themis

Justice in societies that have lost the Christian sense does not distinguish the human face; its eyes, like the eyes of the judicial Themis, are closed with an impenetrable bandage. It does not rise to Christian Grace and is not able to distinguish between human individualities, but blindly legitimizes the equation of all.

But people have different sexes from birth, male and female, such different and such complementary human incarnations. Each is assigned an initially unknown and different number of years of earthly life, in which one dies in infancy, another in the prime of life, and the third as a decrepit old man.

Some live their lives thoughtlessly, not caring about the meaning of life, often behaving indistinguishably from the animal world. The latter devote themselves to their neighbors, give their lives for the Fatherland, develop the various gifts they have received to perfection, and become spiritual ascetics. Still others, on the contrary, consider all people to be indebted to themselves, the entire surrounding reality is damned, and they put all their strength into ensuring that other people are only tools in their hands.

Photo: Redshinestudio / Shutterstock.com

In a word, all people are infinitely different and cannot be reduced to the formal and egalitarian principles of democratic justice.

Whoever puts aside prejudices and looks at life impartially, wrote Ivan Ilyin, will soon become convinced that people are unequal by nature, unequal in their strength and ability, unequal in their social status; and that justice cannot require equal treatment of unequal people ; on the contrary, it requires inequality for unequals , but such inequality as corresponds to the actual inequality of people.

True justice does not require equality. Equality is too primitive and a very inaccurate tool for achieving truth in society. Each person needs his own, individual, unequal treatment. Children are different from adults, sick people are different from healthy people. Smart people are not the same as stupid people. Heroes are not treated like cowards. It is not the same for ascetics as for ordinary people.

Impersonal democracy cannot provide true justice. Democracy narrows the space for the individual, does not trust it, unifies and simplifies the human personality.

Real living justice can only be associated with living human conscience, will and love. Only a human personality is capable of cultivating justice, capable of empathy, and the desire to reduce on earth the number of innocently humiliated or not exalted in deeds.

Justice is a living feeling that cannot be prescribed in any laws. Justice is possible as a personal spiritual desire for truth. There are no collective or legal feelings of justice; this feeling is characteristic only of a living person and can appear in the world only through specific people striving for justice due to their ideological convictions and religious beliefs.

Likewise, power can be truly fair only if, single-handedly headed by a morally developed person, it has the opportunity to use its power to achieve truth in society.

True justice is the manifestation of gospel love, which “is patient, kind, does not seek its own, bears all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:4-7).

Every other revolutionary, socialist, or liberal “justice” seeks power over people. Inflames class hatred, social envy, calls for equalizing revenge. And most importantly, it does not achieve any desired equality, because it cannot destroy human life itself - diverse, multi-talented, multi-powered, which, no matter how much you put it in the Procrustean bed of social experiments in search of “final justice,” it still sooner or later breaks these artificial borders. No matter how much you mow this public “lawn,” it will not stop in its free growth.

And one more thing that needs to be said in connection with the search for justice. Justice without mercy is meaningless. And formal adherence to justice is the path to quarrels that are opposed to Christian beliefs.

Rev. Paisiy Svyatogorets. Photo: pravoslavie.ru

Interesting in this regard is the biblical example given by Rev. Paisiy Svyatogorets.

When the shepherds of Lot and Abraham began to quarrel over pastures, says the monk, Abraham went to Lot and said: “It is not good for us to quarrel with you, because we are relatives. Which side do you prefer? Do you want to go right or left?” Lot, at least partly, acted from human motives; he chose Sodom and Gomorrah because there were green meadows and good pastures for livestock (Gen. 13:1-13). And what a daring thing he had to do there afterwards! And Abraham, moved by Divine justice, wanted to bring joy to Lot. The fact that Lot settled in a better place even brought joy to Abraham.

Most often, those striving for purely human “justice”, seeking preferences for themselves, end up in “Sodom and Gomorrah”, from where they then dream of escaping anywhere.

So it is better to hope for Mercy in heaven, leaving those who certainly want justice to receive it in full in hell, and in life to settle down as best they can, but not at the expense of their neighbor.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy!

Get out of your comfort zone more often

A just person is in most cases a coward. He can defend his rights, but he will live according to the established rules prescribed from above. He will not resist the way of life, since this is unusual for him. To change this passive approach, a person needs to leave his comfort zone from time to time and do things that are unusual for him. For example, he can relax abroad, and not at his dacha, or spend the weekend at a social party, and not in front of the TV. A person must from time to time perform actions that are not typical for him. If it works out well, then each time he will increasingly reconsider his worldview and rework it.

Our comment

Again, “justice is fairness.” Ugly. Well, and then - in the best traditions of the half-science of “economics”: on the one hand, on the other hand. Everything is contradictory, which is why the completely moronic definition of “oil is oil” is given. Although they then carefully interpret that justice is equality, reward of merit, and for some reason the justification of all hopes. This alone shows the level of education of the authors.

Equality is not justice. So Procrustes, a character in the myths of ancient Greece, shortening some and lengthening others who did not fit in size to his Procrustean bed, followed a strict guideline - to make everyone equal, equal in height to him.

Rewarding merit also cannot be considered justice, since the same Third Reich actively rewarded the work of killing people in concentration camps. The realization of all the desires of the same Chikatilo is very far from actual justice.

Accordingly, the example with pensions is absolutely enchantingly idiotic. The authors of the dictionary (yes, yes - a dictionary!) argue that there is no way to achieve justice when applied to pensions, since then there will be a contradiction between interpretations. Well, it's logical - if you choose the wrong interpretations, then you will have the wrong result. For some reason, the authors decided that equality of pensions should be fair, but they immediately oppose themselves - that it is necessary to take into account a person’s merits, his contribution (without specifying the truth - contribution to what exactly? Such “economists” are now paying pensions to former SS sheep in some European countries). An incorrect thesis is easy to oppose. Well, the last one is completely stupid. We repeat: “People should receive exactly the pension they had the right to count on.” They contradict themselves: if all desires are fulfilled, then why the limiting word “right”? The authors unconsciously, apparently, feel that they are writing nonsense and therefore put this limiting word, contradicting themselves.

If we talk about which pensions are fair, then we can give the following definition, leaving some aspects in default (more on which below):

Fair pensions should take into account everyone’s contribution to the fair development of society (without taking into account unfair contributions), provide equal returns for equal contributions, which would ensure the possibility of realizing all the rights of a person who has taken place in the conditions of the impossibility of continuing full-time work.

The following points remain silent: Where does the equitable development of society lead? What are the rights of an accomplished Man? But we will reveal these points further when we give a definition of justice adequate to life.

HOW SHOULD FAIRNESS BE DETERMINED?

The concept of justice is associated with the understanding of good and evil, the discrimination inherent in man, the general morality of man and society. It should be understood that different civilizations have different ideals, and therefore justice is understood differently in them, which, however, does not negate the presence of some otherworldly justice for everyone, if you look at the world from the standpoint of a fairly general theory of management. Since with this approach it turns out that management comes in different mutually nested levels (management at the family level and management at the state level). And processes in the surrounding systems influence the processes in the nested ones, regardless of how the control in the nested ones is structured. That is, it will not be possible to isolate yourself from the surrounding systems.

And the most important thing is that such a view refers us in the hierarchy of mutually nested management to the hierarchically highest comprehensive level of management (every word is important here, in the picture - INVOU), which affects all nested levels. This level is called differently in different cultures and philosophies: God, the Absolute, Universal Consciousness, Universal Mind, the Almighty, Allah, Krishna, etc. - which does not change the essence of the phenomenon that these “fingers” names indicate.

With this view, questions naturally arise: “How to build relationships with this hierarchically highest comprehensive management? What mode of mental functioning will most contribute to this?

If we recall the general school biology course, known to everyone, and look into our own psyche, we can say that the information and algorithmic support of human behavior includes:

• innate instincts and unconditioned reflexes,
• thoughtless automatic practice of habits and learned behavior skills in stimulating situations,
• reasonable development of one’s behavior on the basis of memorable and newly received information,
• intuition that goes beyond the boundaries of the instinctive and rational, the recommendations of which can subsequently be understood by reason,
• conscience, as a channel for receiving unmistakable recommendations (in this way it differs from intuition) from the outside about the correct course of action in a given situation.

It is clear that instincts and reason, intuition, conscience are phenomena of a different hierarchical order in the organization of human behavior on the basis and in the process of his mental activity.

In the psyche of every individual there is a possible or actual place for all this. However, only in Russian there is a saying:

"All people, but not all people"

It is about the fact that you can be a “human being”, but not be able to become a human being due to your mental structure.

After all, our fundamental difference from animals is the ability to purposefully change our psyche, giving preference to one of the components of the psyche. And, indeed, one of the above can subordinate all other components in the process of developing an individual’s behavior in all life circumstances:

• if the first, then the individual is a humanoid animal (such are the majority of members of any national society in the past) - this is an animal type of mental structure;
• if the second, then the individual is a bearer of the “zombie” type of mental structure, since he is, in essence, a biorobot programmed by culture;
• if the third or fourth, then the individual is a bearer of a demonic type of mental structure. Which is characterized by the saying “what I want, I do.”
• if the fifth, then this is the human type of mental structure, the norm for a person, which should be achieved in adolescence (by the beginning of puberty and the awakening of sexual instincts) and gain stability by the beginning of adolescence (the completion of the process of formation of the body), after which it should remain unchanged characteristic of the organization of his psyche throughout the rest of his life in all circumstances without exception.

In our opinion - for the humane structure of the psyche

- it’s normal if innate reflexes and instincts are the basis on which rational behavior is built, choosing which mental programs to work out depending on the advice of conscience; It’s normal when intuition provides information that can be understood through intellectual activity and, again, directed in good conscience for the good. That is, it is normal for the human psyche when in its hierarchy conscience is higher than intuition, intuition is always higher than reason, reason is higher than habits and instincts, and all together they ensure that a person remains in harmony with the biosphere of the Earth, the Cosmos and God.

Nevertheless, quite often we see how the mind becomes a slave and serves the animal instincts of man; how rational activity exalts itself and tries to deny intuitive assessments and even completely displaces intuition from the psyche. As all of them together, they try to reject the Higher providence, conveyed from the hierarchically highest comprehensive level of control through conscience, as a result of which they become victims of limitations and obsession that are insurmountable to them, which finds its expression in the inhuman structure of the psyche

, which, depending on the organization of the component of the individual’s psyche, can be of several types:

• If the mind rejects intuition or serves - like a slave - instincts, then this is not a human, but an animal structure of the psyche. It should be borne in mind that even with an animal mentality, intelligence can be highly developed, and its bearer can be an outstanding professional in one or another field of civilization (including magic), without essentially being a person.
• Also, the structure of the psyche of a biorobot (zombie) differs from a human one in that freedom in handling information is lost in behavior, as a result of which the individual autonomously works out a behavioral program embedded in his psyche (autonomous robot-automatic machine) or is unable to prevent the activation of inherent skills and qualities from the outside, i.e. others at their discretion (remote controlled robot). In addition, zombie programs can be hierarchically more significant in an individual’s behavior than innate instincts, as a result of which, on the one hand, in some situations a zombie does not show instinctive animal reactions to stimuli and looks like a human, unlike carriers of an animal mentality , who do not try to restrain the animal nature. On the other hand, there is a possible conflict in the zombie psyche between behavioral programs of instincts and zombie behavior programs, as well as between various zombie programs.
• Demonic personalities, having conscious or unconscious inflated self-esteem, and being carriers of the animal psyche, building the zombie psyche, or being in the willfulness of individualism, freed from the bondage of instincts and zombifying programs, give rise to aggressively parasitic individualism with claims to superhuman dignity in humanity. That is, the basis of the demonic type of psyche is the inhuman structure of the psyche of those who are given from Above to be human.

In our modern society, there are a huge number of people whose mental structure can be called unnatural, lower than that of an animal. This structure of the psyche is not characteristic of human nature, its genetics, since it is characterized by self-poisoning of people with various psychotropics (alcohol, tobacco and other drugs). It is brought into life by the social system in which modern people live.

In human societies, the options for the “relationship” of culture (considered as an information-algorithmic system with which the psyche of individuals interacts, also considered as an information-algorithmic system) to personal cognitive and creative potential as an objective factor can be different.

Firstly, the culture of any society can be classified into one of two classes:

• cultures in which no one is aware of this problem;
• cultures in which this problem is recognized by at least some.

Secondly, in each of the two classes of crops mentioned above, the following options are also possible:

• cultures whose algorithms are indifferent to the activities of individuals aimed at mastering their cognitive and creative potential;
• cultures whose algorithms are aimed at suppressing the cognitive and creative potential of the majority for the sake of certain minorities - up to the genetic consolidation of the effect of suppressing or destroying the cognitive and creative potential;
• cultures, the algorithms of which are aimed at the fullest possible development of the cognitive and creative potential of all and its development in subsequent generations.

Since each person lives not alone (isolated), but in society (a city, some kind of collective, company, party, etc.), this gives rise to in society as a whole (village, city, region, party, company, etc.) .d.) a certain collective mental activity (“collective psyche”, mental “atmosphere”.) It can be of two types:

• With increasing errors. To the mistakes one person makes are added to the mistakes made by others. The lump of errors grows and buries the entire society (part of society, party...) if society (part of society) does not prepare a different mental “atmosphere”.
• With bug fixes. A mistake made by one person is corrected by others. But the main thing here is that everyone tries not to make mistakes themselves, so as not to burden others with eliminating the mistake.

Now, having noted and explained all these points, we can give a simple and clear definition of justice:

"Justice

- this is the policy of the state and the activities of civil society aimed at eradicating the exploitation of “man by man”, by building a culture in which the structure of the psyche of the majority expresses the human qualities of the species Homo sapiens, that is, the irreversibly human type of psyche structure will be achieved by everyone as the only and without alternative normal to the beginning of adolescence. Justice provides in society the unconditional opportunity for every member of society to realize their destiny (human potential) in the best possible way.”

Therefore, a special topic in sociology and cultural studies as one of its branches are the questions:

• that it is from the genetically programmed potential of personal and social development of a person that we do not master due to the lack of demand for these abilities in the historically developed vicious culture,
• how to change the culture so that it stimulates the full development of the genetic potential predetermined by Providence.

CONCLUSION

Naturally, in a normal human culture, the achievement of a humane type of mental structure by the beginning of adolescence should be accompanied by the formation of a holistic worldview and understanding of the world, the formation of a personal culture of dialectical cognition and creativity. In other words:

• the true development of society should be expressed in a shift in the statistics of the distribution of the population by type of mental structure towards an increase in the proportion of carriers of the human type of mental structure;
• and degradation, regression of society - in a decrease in the proportion of carriers of the human type of mental structure and an increase in the proportion of inhuman ones.

But different civilizations have different understandings of justice.

Live your life and don't follow others

A heightened sense of justice does not develop on its own. It is a mistake in raising a child. Parents who forced the child to often look around at others and compare his personality with those around him crippled his consciousness. The kid can no longer evaluate his actions without looking at his neighbor. And naturally, the child will be offended if a neighbor receives more than others for his efforts.

An adult who knows his problem must fight it. First of all, you need to give up the habit of looking around at others. It doesn't matter how or who works. It is important how you work and whether you enjoy the process. If you are satisfied with your activities, then you should not pay attention to the opinions of others. You should accept the fact that every person can have their own opinion about you. But this does not mean that you need to pay attention to it. Live without regard for others, this is how you will become happier.

Signs

An enhanced sense of justice can appear suddenly, or it can accompany a person constantly. A sign of the formation of such a quality is, for example, weakness. If a person is morally weak, cannot independently protect his interests and defend his boundaries, then, most likely, he will suffer from permanent injustice.

Another sign that a person will develop a strong sense of justice is a difficult childhood. This is also a subjective concept, but most of the “symptoms” are similar: lack of parental love and low level of material security. The child is not able to understand why he receives toys only for his birthday and New Year, while Serezha’s parents buy him toys every month. For him, this is an example of injustice.

Don't look for idols

Do you have a keen sense of justice? This means that you probably have your own personal idol, whom you try to imitate. The hero can be either real or fictional. Some people re-read fairy tales about Robin Hood as children, while others have always liked fairy tales where good triumphs over evil. Growing up, a person understood that he needed to look up to someone and chose a certain character as his ideal. But such an alignment does not lead to anything good. A person is upset that he cannot repeat the fate of his ideal.

A person should compare himself not with a fictional character or with a neighbor, but with himself. If you have made a big leap in the development of your personality over the past year compared to what happened last year, then consider it a success. It is precisely such achievements that we should be proud of.

Justice Fair

The rarest thing you can find on

earth is a truly just person.

James Fenimore Cooper. St. John's wort

What satisfaction does a person experience when, looking

into his own heart, he is convinced that it is fair.

Charles Louis de Montesquieu. Persian letters

Someday they will ask: “What can you actually show”?

And no connections will help make the leg small,

a big soul and a fair heart.

Cinderella (1947)

Justice as a quality of personality is the ability to follow the truth in one’s actions and opinions in a divine, impartial manner; act legally and honestly.

One day, two women came to the wise, fair King Solomon with a request to resolve their dispute. One of them said that they lived in the same house, and they each had a son of the same age. Last night, another woman accidentally strangled her son in a dream ("fell asleep" him) and transferred the dead one to her, and took her living son to her and now passes him off as her own. Another woman claimed the opposite: allegedly it was the one who accused her who did it. And each of them claimed that the living child belonged to her. Solomon ordered a sword to be given to him: “And the king said: cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other. And that woman, whose son was alive, answered the king, for her whole inside was agitated with pity for her son: Oh, my lord! give her this child alive and do not kill him. And the other said: let it not happen, neither for me nor for you, chop it down.” So Solomon realized which of the two women was the true mother of the child, and gave him to the one who asked to save his life.

Solomon's court is a fair, wise court. Solomon's solution is a witty solution, a clever way out of a difficult or delicate situation.

Justice and injustice exist only in interpersonal relationships. Where there is self-interest, profit, passion and hatred, people, by definition, will simultaneously consider the same action either fair or unfair. People in passion and ignorance believe: - If it is profitable, it means it is fair. If it is unprofitable, it means it is unfair. In nature there is givenness and harmony. Oceans, mountains and fields do not argue with each other whether their existence is fair or not. After winter comes spring, after spring comes summer, after summer comes autumn, and again winter.

A just person is, first of all, a person living under the influence of the energy of goodness. Kindness allows you to be an open-minded, impartial and wise person. People under the influence of the energy of passion, and especially ignorance, have no chance of being fair. As soon as their plans are realized, they joyfully rub their hands and exclaim: “Finally, justice has triumphed!”

Justice is the daughter of impartiality. Witness Lee, in her book Character, writes: “To be fair is to be open-minded, to be open-minded about everything. For example, when evaluating people, you need to be judicious. Disadvantages invariably occur in something good, and advantages can also be found among the shortcomings. To be fair, you need to be impartial, paying attention to every aspect of a person or issue, evaluating it from different angles and giving it its due place.

This has nothing to do with spirituality or morality, but with character. Both the teacher who interprets the Scriptures and the elder who governs the church must have a just character. A person cannot do right if there is an element of injustice in his character. A clear example of this is an inaccurate level, with which it is impossible to make a flat surface.”

To be fair, a good person must have a significant level of knowledge. For example, without knowledge of the laws it is difficult to carry out a fair trial, relying only on intuition and the voice of conscience. A fair person spends his whole life in the position of a student of life. He shows genuine interest in his surroundings. You become fair when you have your own coordinate system, your own worldview, which is in harmony with the laws of the universe, with God’s commandments.

Haruki Murakami, in the context of this thought, wrote: “People die every now and then; human life is much more dangerous than you think. Therefore, you need to treat people in such a way that there is nothing to regret later. Fairly – and as sincerely as possible.”

A just person understands the importance of doing good, mercy and compassion. At the same time, he realizes that everything in this world has its cause and its effect. This is a world where everything is subject to the laws of cause and effect or the laws of justice. The principle of “Tit for tooth” and “Eye for an eye” applies here. It is not given to a person to know what he has done in previous incarnations. Therefore, the karma that has come seems unfair to him. He doesn’t see cause-and-effect relationships, so he exclaims: “God!” For what? After all, I'm so good! Why kill me? And this good one committed the murder of a person in a previous life. Life is a boomerang. The debt was returned to him according to the laws of justice. What goes around comes around.

When a person forgives, shows mercy, shows compassion, he breaks out of the boundaries of this world. Grace is not a category of the world of passion and ignorance. Mercy is higher than justice. Justice is a quality of a person’s personality. The divine qualities of a person are forgiveness, mercy, mercy, compassion. In the world of passion, everyone seeks condescension, mercy, forgiveness. To others, in his opinion, he shows justice. That is, the rule of caudillo Franco applies: - Everything is for friends, the law is for the enemy. When it comes to him, a person says: “Treat me fairly,” and we mean to forgive me. That is: “The Soviet court is the most humane court in the world.” For ourselves we want forgiveness, compassion, mercy, for others - naked justice: - If you steal, you go to prison.

Alexander Sviyazh writes: “Life can be neither fair nor unfair, since everything in it has causes and consequences.” Alexander Zhurba echoes him: “The world is fair. Every effect has its own cause. Everyone gets exactly what they created the conditions to receive.” Esther Hicks and Jerry Hicks write: “It turns out that there is no injustice. Everyone always receives exactly what they feel and project into the world. Everything always corresponds to one another - which means it’s fair.”

Petr Kovalev 2014 Other articles by the author: https://www.podskazki.info/karta-statej/

Think with your head more

People with a strong sense of justice think in stereotypes. They do not make their own decisions about what is good and what is bad. They take such knowledge from fairy tales, books and stories from their parents. But you shouldn’t trust anyone’s word. Even inviolable truths should always be tested. Otherwise, a person can turn into a puppet in someone else's hands. Think with your own head, make your own decisions based on the arguments that you personally made.

Our comment

Although Ushakov’s Dictionary talks about the connection between justice and truth, in each of the articles it mentions impartiality. But confusion arises if you look at the definition of the word “impartial” given in the same dictionary:

IMPARTIAL [sn], impartial, impartial; impartial, impartial, impartial. Capable of fair assessment, judgment, unprejudiced, free from partiality. An impartial judge.

|| Fair, not determined by personal inclination or bias.

So it turns out that justice, according to Ushakov, is just following the truth. Butter oil, don't you think? But the most “wonderful” definition of justice is contained, not surprisingly, in the economic dictionary.

JUSTICE

— (impartiality) (equity, fairness). The concept of distributive justice used in welfare economics. Justice in the sense of impartiality has several meanings that are not always consistent with each other. Sometimes justice means equality; in other cases, justice is seen in the fact that rewards should depend on merit; finally, sometimes justice means that all hopes and expectations must be met. These interpretations of the word “justice” may contradict each other.

For example, if we consider the concept of equity in relation to pensions, it turns out that equity as equality implies approximately equal amounts of pensions; justice as matching rewards to merit implies that the pension of people who did hard and responsible work should be higher than those who worked without strain or did ordinary work, and justice as confirmation of expectations means that people should receive exactly the pension that they deserve. which they had the right to count on.

Justice or law Editorial material

Alexander Tsypkin sometimes understands what is happening.
The “hunt for teachers” continues in America. They intend to imprison another overly voluptuous teacher for some decades for sex with her underage students. In Russia, these events caused an unprecedented unity of the entire society under the slogans of “freedom for Yuri Detochkin.”

No matter who you ask, everyone is outraged by the persecution of unfortunate women and the cruelty of American justice. They even forgot about Crimea for a short time. I interviewed acquaintances on both sides of the ocean, remembered my similar survey regarding Crimea, Maidan and Khodorkovsky - and discovered a key trend in the assessment of all these events.

Regardless of political and ethical views, Russians (myself included) consider justice, not the law, to be the basic measure of good and evil in both public and private decisions and actions.

And this is a serious difference from the American or Western European mentality. So serious, it seems to me, that it makes the full assimilation of Russians there and the same Americans here very difficult, not to mention full-fledged geopolitical cooperation.

Let's start with school erotomaniacs. The very first criticism of the actions of the American authorities comes up against a killer argument: “If it were not a beautiful woman and three guys, but a fifty-year-old, sanitarily neglected freak and three “daisy girls,” would it be necessary to go to prison?” From a legal point of view, nothing has changed. But everything has changed for us. I, too, cannot bring myself to reason logically and demand the release of the young ladies. I understand that I’m wrong, but I can’t do anything with my thoughts. It's unfair, that's all. But the law is a drawbar, there is no point in interfering with it.

I repeat, everyone united with women, but let’s take Crimea. Even the most “cotton of cotton”, if pressed in the kitchen and poured properly, will admit that from the point of view of the law there are questions with the accession. There are no questions only about justice: “Crimea is ours because it is fair.”

It is clear that it is the factor of illegality that opponents use as the main argument in disputes about the peninsula. But if you lock them in the kitchen again and give them something to drink, you will hear a whisper in your ear: “It was fair, of course, that they took them away.” And then loudly: “But they broke the law!” And somehow this phrase about the law does not sound very convincing from their lips; they themselves do not really believe in it. Moreover, as soon as we talk about Maidan, these same “guardians of the law” talk about the justice of the revolution, which, obviously, violated all possible laws, like any revolution.

And this is my subjective assessment, but when they talk about the justice of the revolution, their eyes light up more than when they declare the illegality of actions in Crimea. The picture is similar with supporters of “CrimeaNash”. Somehow they dimly defend Yanukovych on the illegality of the revolution. They don't believe in their own words. Foreign friends say almost the same thing, but for them, compliance with the law in both cases is primary by definition.

Let's remember Khodorkovsky. When he was imprisoned, supporters spoke of serious irregularities in the investigation and far-fetched accusations. To this, the bulk of the population said: “Maybe you are right, and the law in this particular case was broken, but in fairness he should be in jail, he stole the oil, and it’s not clear about the murders. In short, there is something to be imprisoned for, and this is the main thing.”

Moreover, I found similar rhetoric, but with the opposite sign, among those who called for the release of Khodorkovsky: “It’s clear that during perestroika everyone robbed the country, and he too, but it’s unfair to imprison only him, then all the oligarchs should be taken.” Both of them do not consider the law as a starting point. Justice is a priority.

And so on down to the smallest detail. You're stuck in a traffic jam on the highway, and a jeep is speeding along the side of the road. Everyone hates him and wants to impale him right with the car. If a girl were driving a Lada with the sign “I’m late for the airport”, everyone would think that she was doing the right thing. The same goes for self-defense, officials, and so on. Even Stalin is acquitted for the same reason. They believe that he acted fairly and cared about the country.

It’s good, of course, to live fairly, but there is one problem. Justice is different for everyone, and also depends heavily on the speaker.

The law is somehow more universal, and ultimately statistically fairer. But I don’t think we will ever change; we lived too long under the Tsar and the Bolsheviks. We don’t really believe in laws: they change frequently and are difficult to understand.

To rule us, you need to create a feeling of fairness of your decisions - and then you can move the law almost any way you want. Is this good or bad, I don't know. It’s probably still bad, but you can’t change the mentality in twenty years, and if you don’t accept such a value system as a given, then it’s very difficult to live here.

Teachers, I think, need to be released. It's somehow unfair.

Alexander Tsypkin, Specially for TJ

About justice

There is no such thing as justice

.
That is, it does not exist in the understanding to which we are accustomed. For some reason, often when trouble happens to us, we think that it is unfair. We are sure that we were unfairly and undeservedly shouted at somewhere in the queue; it is unfair that the hot water was turned off, although we pay for it: “ Why is that?
Am I a good person? I didn’t kill anyone, I didn’t rob anyone, why did they turn off my water?” When the question concerns another person, we turn into the most knowledgeable and noble judges: “ This happened to him because he deserved it, because he is actually not a very good person. I remember that he somehow didn’t lend me money when I needed it, so his water was turned off. The earth is round, so it comes back to him.”

We have all heard, and more than once, that nothing happens without leaving a trace; no one has yet canceled the cause-and-effect relationships. Every thought, every word spoken has its consequences. But it is not given to us to know how and in what way the chain of events will go after the spoken word. Like in that cartoon where the boss yelled at his subordinate, that evening he yelled at his wife, the wife at the dog, and the dog ran out into the street and bit that same boss. Maybe when an unpleasant event happens to us, it is a consequence of something we did a long time ago? So maybe that’s just fair? But human memory is short, especially for our less than plausible actions. And we perceive this as something new that has happened and is unfair. And we begin to set our own rules again, get offended, fight, sort things out, thereby starting a new circle of cause-and-effect relationships.

Two years ago, an illustrative incident happened to me and my best friend. We were planning to go on vacation together. Since she was given leave only in November, for this occasion I took leave without pay, and to cover expenses I took out a loan. I spent a lot of time collecting documents for a visa (well, you know how it happens). And then, when it was time to go to the travel agency and conclude an agreement, she refused! I was so terribly angry that I couldn’t even talk to her for several months. I thought that I would never forgive her for this in my life. Although no one stopped me from going alone, instead of overcoming my social anxiety, I decided to be righteously angry at my friend and refuse the vacation. And last year, when she was going on vacation with other girls, they also canceled the trip when everything had already been purchased and booked. Then my friend wrote me a message saying, “ everything is coming back, now I understand you”

. And then she took this situation quite easily, went on vacation alone and had a good time.

It turns out that everything is quite fair. I couldn’t forgive my friend, and she had to feel like she was in my place. But if she forgot about our history, then she would be offended by those girls, and then they would have to suffer in the future. And so the circle is closed. Justice has prevailed. But...then I thought, what if the fact that my friend once “betrayed” me is retribution for some past mistake of mine? And it turns out that this time I got off easy, and she had to suffer again (luckily she chose not to suffer!). When you start to unravel this tangle, it even becomes somehow scary.

The problem is that the consequences of our actions, words and thoughts (!) do not appear immediately, but sometimes after years, when we have already forgotten about it. And remember how many grudges you have held against people since kindergarten, and thereby doomed them to redemption. Someday they will experience something unpleasant because you were offended. But will they remember? Yes, you may not even be around. And someone else will be nearby, and then, in the future, he will suffer punishment... because of you. Because of your resentment.

There is only one fair law for everyone - everything that you have done will come back to you. Maybe not in the same form, and from the wrong person, and not right away, but it will definitely return. If we accept an unpleasant situation and choose not to be offended, then we will be able to at least slightly interrupt this endless chain of crimes and punishments. It is possible that right now you are receiving what you once gave.

Maybe if we think about this more often, we will be more attentive in the future to what we say, think and do. And we will react much more easily to unforeseen circumstances, conflicts, troubles, because each of them will remind us of ourselves, and each event will become a means for our own development, spiritual growth and analysis.