Chapter 9. What is Justice?
Recommended Reading: 【Philosophy】 Philosophy Index
6. The Concept of Justice of the Three Admirals in One Piece
1. Justice by Aristotle
⑴ The three elements of persuasion—logos, pathos, and ethos—are each related to propositions of fact, value, and policy, respectively.
2. Justice by Michael Sandel
⑴ Introduces various theories of justice such as utilitarianism and hedonism and points out their problems.
⑵ Utilitarianism: The view that the choice that maximizes the greatest number of interests is just.
⑶ Hedonism: The view that the choice that maximizes the sum of the greatest number of happiness is just.
⑷ Thought Experiment 1. Trolley dillema: What choice should be made when one person and five people are on different train tracks and the train must go down one?
⑸ Thought Experiment 2. Is a society where one person becomes maximally unhappy and the rest are happy a just society?
3. Justice by Bourdieu
⑴ The position that the ideologies and philosophies of the powerful are justice.
① Power is objective, clear, and somewhat exclusive.
② In the Paleolithic Age, for people whose intuition was not yet developed, the logic of arrogance and the logic of power were helpful for survival.
⑵ Strength: Very clear.
⑶ Weakness: When discussing theories of justice, value judgments are lost, and only factual judgments remain.
① For example, the implication that every act of a dictator is just: What use is a theory of justice without judgment?
4.Welfare Economics
⑴ An attempt to explain theories of justice in economic terms.
⑵ Concepts of efficiency and equity appear.
5.Introduction to Law
⑴ Describes the concept, purpose, and form of existence of law aimed at realizing social justice.
⑵ The law must be equal for everyone as a derivative logic.
6. The Concept of Justice of the Three Admirals in One Piece
⑴ Akainu’s concept of justice: Rigorous justice.
⑵ Aokiji’s concept of justice: Lax justice.
⑶ Kizaru’s concept of justice: Ambiguous justice.
7. My Concept of Justice
⑴ Proposition 1: Justice is personalized knowledge. Ultimately, it is highly analogous to intuition.
① The Naturalistic Fallacy: Factual judgments alone cannot derive value judgments.
○ In this symmetrical world, whether “left” is better than “right” belongs purely to the subjective realm of the individual.
○ The Origin of Values: While some initial value judgments stem from one’s parents during infancy, they are continuously updated through the individual’s DNA and unique life trajectory. Eventually, questions like “Do I like music?” or “Should I dip or pour my sauce?” cease to have objective answers.
○ To debate the “correctness” of another’s value judgment is inappropriate, as it challenges the very definition of their existence. A person’s conviction is a destiny granted only to them.
② Justice shares the attributes of knowledge.
○ Exceptions to the Naturalistic Fallacy: If a value judgment is not based on facts or if two value judgments within one person conflict (i.e., they lack logical consistency), others can criticize it.
○ One can factually infer another’s logical framework of values through explicit statements or implicit behavioral patterns.
○ The Hybrid State: Factual and value judgments often coexist. The statements “The glass is half full” and “The glass is half empty” share the same factual basis but contain divergent value judgments.
○ The attribute of knowledge of justice is relates to Propositions 3.
③ Internal Consistency: For a value system to be free of inherent contradictions, all judgments must ultimately converge on a single major premise.
○ Human contradiction arises from holding two or more competing values as primary premises.
○ Because value judgments ideally converge into one, I believe the “information volume” within a value judgment is relatively low.
○ This is related to Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. Ultimately, it’s also connected to why humans are contradictory.
④ Relativism: No single value can be claimed as superior to another.
○ Without shared values, communication is impossible. Some individuals do not even subscribe to the “logic of power.” I am somewhat like that.
○ For me, respecting others’ value judgments is a matter of pluralism, not nihilism or laissez-faire indifference.
○ One cannot logically negate a pessimist or a relativist driven by conviction. Two independent, stable logical systems cannot claim logical superiority over one another in their contradictions.
○ There is nothing to be “learned” from another’s value judgment itself.
⑵ Proposition 2: Justice is dynamic.
① Since many of our value judgments are rooted in the Paleolithic era, they must be fine-tuned for modern society. We must recalibrate the “weights” of our values.
② When personal hope overrides wise judgment, it indicates a failure to properly “learn” the weight of hope required to achieve an objective.
③ To prevent internal conflict, beliefs should be managed dynamically and kept to a manageable number.
④ Specific value judgments can be discarded if they conflict with higher-order values or the underlying factual judgments.
⑤ Over time, value judgments that were once considered lower-level can come to take precedence as higher-level ones.
⑶ Proposition 3: Justice has a “Scope of Validity,” much like knowledge.
① Even personalized knowledge can have shared elements.
○ Power is objective (per Bourdieu’s definition), and the logic of power exists in a corner of everyone’s mind.
○ There are shared value judgments reflected in our DNA, echoing memories of the Paleolithic era.
○ The common good—such as pursuing the greatest happiness for the greatest number—is generally desirable. (Benefit to altruists)
○ Sustainable happiness is generally desirable. That’s why we can criticize wasteful spending habits, drug use, and so on.
○ Values can be triggered by others, social media, or the environment, stemming from the instinct to maintain group homogeneity. However, induced value judgments neither shape an individual’s identity nor carry much weight since people may deliberately give false advice.
○ The statements of politicians, mostly composed of value judgments, contain “information” only in terms of their consistency with the values of the majority.
○ Shared value judgments constitute the field of Social Science.
② If no shared value judgments exist, comparing individuals is impossible—much like the relationship between exchange rates and tradable goods between nations.
③ Individualism: Justice is that which most prizes human value.
○ Human value refers to the intellectual capacity to create “something from nothing,” regardless of the field.
○ On average, two people are judged more valuable than one. (My response to Michael Sandel’s Trolley Dilemma).
○ Because the world is dynamic (and knowledge tends to perish), both the amount and the speed of generation of knowledge are vital. Intellectual capacity encompasses both.
④ Collectivism: Justice is minimizing the total sum of contradictions within a society. This is defined by the group and prioritizes social stability.
○ Influenced by Kantianism.
○ Since contradiction itself is objective, the concept of justice gains objectivity. (e.g., The “Yesong Debate” as a representative contradiction of Neo-Confucianism).
○ Justice is flexible because it changes with the group, and moral because it seeks social stabilization.
○ Creating a new contradiction to solve an old one is unjust; thus, reckless reform is a mistake.
○ Unjust groups cannot survive the process of evolution.
○ Even with pure intentions, a disastrous result is unjust.
○ Unpure intentions that benefit the group might be called “just,” but according to Game Theory, such outcomes are rare.
⑤ Human value and collective value are both forms of knowledge. Since knowledge has inherent levels (hierarchies), the competition between individualism and collectivism can be resolved, even when they appear contradictory.
⑷ Proposition 4: Value judgments constitute our lives and provide the motivation for new factual judgments.
① A prime example: “I want to conduct this research to cure cancer patients.”
② To me, knowledge is synonymous with fun. I hope for a world where humanity creates infinite knowledge and grows eternally
[for an eternally interesting world](https://jb243.github.io/pages/2424).
Input: 2023.03.04 11:01
Revised: 2024.07.21 11:39