- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How did the framers understand or define justice?
Posted on 7/20/26 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 7/20/26 at 12:41 pm
Re-reading Rawls, who defines justice "by the role of its principles in assigning rights and duties and in defining the appropriate division of social advantages."
Obviously he wrote long after the framers lived. So how did they understand justice? If the Constitution was written to "establish justice," what did that really mean? We know they were interested in religious freedom, free speech and adequate representation in government. They couldn't possibly fathom or anticipate the complex institutions and systems that have been created in modern times, or the role justice could/would/should play in them.
In Thomas Jefferson's first inaugural address, he famously said “Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political...”
What did he think justice is? What does America think justice is now? For as much as the word is thrown around in this country, there doesn't seem to be a consensus about what it really means. We mostly use it to describe our penal system, but shouldn't a moral society, including its institutions, be centered around justice?
Obviously he wrote long after the framers lived. So how did they understand justice? If the Constitution was written to "establish justice," what did that really mean? We know they were interested in religious freedom, free speech and adequate representation in government. They couldn't possibly fathom or anticipate the complex institutions and systems that have been created in modern times, or the role justice could/would/should play in them.
In Thomas Jefferson's first inaugural address, he famously said “Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political...”
What did he think justice is? What does America think justice is now? For as much as the word is thrown around in this country, there doesn't seem to be a consensus about what it really means. We mostly use it to describe our penal system, but shouldn't a moral society, including its institutions, be centered around justice?
30
Posted on 7/20/26 at 12:47 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Rawls
definitely not the way he did. not even the more relativistic of the Framers.
Posted on 7/20/26 at 12:58 pm to McLemore
I think his theory of justice is more in line with how we perceive justice in modern times, though. At least abstractly. I mean that by we abstractly want the division of advantages and responsibilities to be "fair," but we also can't help but think we each individually deserve more or better or "more fair" advantages... or perhaps we refuse to accept that we have any advantages. It's just part of the human condition.
Posted on 7/20/26 at 1:31 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
They couldn't possibly fathom or anticipate the complex institutions and systems that have been created in modern times, or the role justice could/would/should play in them.
Almost like they had the forethought to include a method for future peoples to alter the constitution and government to reflect changing situations and norms.
Ready to say the 3 words?
This post was edited on 7/20/26 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 7/20/26 at 1:33 pm to 4cubbies
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Posted on 7/20/26 at 1:39 pm to 4cubbies
Saw a cubbies thread and stopped by to give the 25th downvote without reading.
Posted on 7/20/26 at 1:45 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Rawls, who defines justice "by the role of its principles in assigning rights and duties and in defining the appropriate division of social advantages."
quote:
They couldn't possibly fathom or anticipate the complex institutions and systems that have been created in modern times, or the role justice could/would/should play in them.
They fathomed more than you apparently ever will. First and foremost, due to an understanding of history and tyranny, they fathomed that when govt and its acolytes deem themselves arbiters of "the appropriate division of social advantages", tyranny is the ultimate goal.
This post was edited on 7/20/26 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 7/20/26 at 1:49 pm to 4cubbies
let me tell you what it doesn't mean everyone gets the same amount of money and the same amount of stuff, which is what you want it to mean.
Posted on 7/20/26 at 1:52 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
...the framers...
Justice here would be referring to these gentlemen by who they are and what they were...
The Founding Fathers!
You make them sound like rough carpenters...
Posted on 7/20/26 at 1:53 pm to dickkellog
quote:
it doesn't mean everyone gets the same amount of money and the same amount of stuff
Actually, that would be the opposite of justice.
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:03 pm to 4cubbies
Justice is paying for the crimes you commit, and only the crimes you commit, no matter how rich or poor you are, your social status, ethnicity, etc. Justice is supposed to be blind. The action is judged on its own, regardless of the participants.
Post modernists have co-opted the word "justice" and applied it to social constructs. In their minds, any time two parties are unequal, a crime has been committed, and the victim needs justice. It's the core of cultural Marxism, it convinces people that everything in life they don't like is someone else's fault, and the government is responsible for ironing out these inequities. They don't say why though. Why do you deserve it? The only reason you exist is, a sperm cell from a biological male united with the egg cell of a biological female. That's scientific objective truth. Why are other human beings who had no say in your existence legally responsible for your happiness and welfare?
Post modernists have co-opted the word "justice" and applied it to social constructs. In their minds, any time two parties are unequal, a crime has been committed, and the victim needs justice. It's the core of cultural Marxism, it convinces people that everything in life they don't like is someone else's fault, and the government is responsible for ironing out these inequities. They don't say why though. Why do you deserve it? The only reason you exist is, a sperm cell from a biological male united with the egg cell of a biological female. That's scientific objective truth. Why are other human beings who had no say in your existence legally responsible for your happiness and welfare?
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:09 pm to 4cubbies
It would be difficult to reconcile the Federalist Papers with Rawls’s methodology. ( Too long for phone dissertation from the pool. )
ETA: coincidentally, I was just listening to this podcast episode that’s somewhat on point. He even mentions Rawls in passing.
The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge: How it Happens and What it Means. 2010 USC (L.A.) philosophy prof Dallas Willard lecture at UC Irvine
ETA: coincidentally, I was just listening to this podcast episode that’s somewhat on point. He even mentions Rawls in passing.
The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge: How it Happens and What it Means. 2010 USC (L.A.) philosophy prof Dallas Willard lecture at UC Irvine
This post was edited on 7/20/26 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:23 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
"by the role of its principles in assigning rights and duties and in defining the appropriate division of social advantages."
I am not familiar with Rawls, but this quote leads me to believe that he believes in layered justice. Justice that is not applied evenly, but is applied according to one's social and financial standing. This is wrong and is why we see problems in many areas today. Restorative justice is an injustice to the majority.
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:29 pm to Lou
quote:
Justice is paying for the crimes you commit, and only the crimes you commit, no matter how rich or poor you are, your social status, ethnicity, etc. Justice is supposed to be blind. The action is judged on its own, regardless of the participants.
So justice only extends to criminal behavior? There's no justice outside of punishment for crime?
quote:
a crime has been committed, and the victim needs justice.
What does the victim need? Wouldn't the victim need to be made whole again? To me, that's the only form of justice that actually serves the victim.
quote:Crime is a social construct.
Post modernists have co-opted the word "justice" and applied it to social constructs.
quote:I don't know how to respond to this straw man.
Why are other human beings who had no say in your existence legally responsible for your happiness and welfare?
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:37 pm to UtahCajun
quote:Any time there is a modifier before the word justice, it immediately loses its meaning. Social justice means justice for some at the expense of others.
Restorative justice is an injustice to the majority.
"Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the innocent. Follow justice and justice alone"
-- Deuteronomy 16:19-20
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:39 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
What does the victim need? Wouldn't the victim need to be made whole again? To me, that's the only form of justice that actually serves the victim.
quote:
What defines a victim?
quote:
Crime is a social construct.
Really? So if you are raped in the jungle where there is no society is it not a crime?
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:40 pm to Lou
God bless anyone responding to this attention seeking individual ..
Prepare thy anus for dishonesty, feigned ignorance of common sense/ established law and anything that doesn't further the OP's world view ...
Prepare thy anus for dishonesty, feigned ignorance of common sense/ established law and anything that doesn't further the OP's world view ...
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:41 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
but this quote leads me to believe that he believes in layered justice. Justice that is not applied evenly, but is applied according to one's social and financial standing.
He is concerned with the concept of justice, and how it could be applied, when there is an allotment of something rationally regarded as advantageous or disadvantageous (like political influence, or access to opportunities).
He argues that shouldn't be dependent on one's income or social position. He talks about "the veil of ignorance" which decision makers should be covered in when determining principles of justice, which requires choosing principles of justice without knowing our own social or financial position, or how we would personally benefit from the chosen form of justice.
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:42 pm to dnm3305
quote:
Really? So if you are raped in the jungle where there is no society is it not a crime?
Harm does not equal crime, because crime is a social construct. If someone is raped in a society that doesn't criminalize rape, no crime was committed.
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:44 pm to 4cubbies
This weird lady has to be top 3 in worst posters on this site
Page 1 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News