Has Justice been Served? (2/9)

This is part 2 (post 2/9) of a series on Justice.

In the previous post (1/9) we listed and examined a long list of 79 words (i.e., Fair, Judge, Legitimate, etc.) that are often used as normative constructs when discussing the concept of Justice. A review of these words and a preliminary categorization of these words revealed some interesting patterns, but without an underlying logical framework, the words themselves did not lead us to a deeper understanding of what Justice was, especially the unique subjective feeling of Justice.

Today we'll go one step deeper and begin to attempt to uncover the Mechanics of Justice. If the previous post (1/9) took a bottom-up approach (i.e., from normative constructs → logical meaning), today we will take a top-down approach (i.e., logical meaning → dimensions of Justice).

- ה -

Let us begin with a simple event:

Person A kills Person B

First, this statement itself is factual. Someone (Person A) did something (Kill) to another (Person B).

It is a statement about what happened. It is Truth.

But Truth is directly confirmable only to the person who experienced the event, and even that experience cannot always be treated as certain. We are confined within the prison of our own perception, and our understanding of any Act is limited by what we are capable of perceiving and comprehending. For those who did not witness the Act, the problem becomes one of verifiability.

Even so, this does give use the atomic unit of Judgement:

The Object of Justice.

That upon which all ensuing Judgements are based.

Justice's primary unit of analysis.

Second, it suggests an expanding circle of proof, in which the further one moves from The Act, the further one moves away from Truth.

The Act:

The event as it actually occurred. Justice's primary unit of analysis. The Object of Justice.

⇓

The Experience of the Act:

This is where the first separation of actual Truth and experienced Truth occurs.

What we experience as Truth can only pass through an imperfect individual,

bounded by perception and cognition.

The Object of Truth is therefore limited by what can be perceived and understood.

⇓

The Judgement of the Act:

The distance between The Act and the Judgement widens, as the Judge moves further away from

the event itself.

First, through the limits of perception and cognition.
Then, through the distance in space and time.

Did you commit the Act?
Were you present to witness it?
If you did not experience it yourself, what are you using to Judge it?

At this point, Truth becomes verifiable (and admissible) Proof.

But [Proof of Truth] is not the same as [Truth].

Third, the statement that forms The Object of Justice (Justice's unit of analysis) reveals something important regarding the Mechanics of Justice:

②[Person A] ①[Kills] ③[Person B]

Kills: The Act.
The event that triggers everything. The disturbance that may require Judgement.
Person A: The Actor.
The person or thing that committed the Act. The possible location of agency, intent, responsibility, and accountability. The Act is the basis upon which the Actor is judged.
Person B: The Recipient.
The person or thing that was affected by the Act. The possible location of impact, injury, rights, standing, and remedy.

For Justice to have an Object:

there must be a Judgeable Act,
an Actor to whom the Act can be attributed,
and a Recipient whose condition is affected by it.

The Actor and Recipient may be individuals, groups, institutions, systems, or even the same entity.

The Act need not be physical. It may take the form of a thought, a written or spoken word, a decision, a declaration, a command, a promise, a threat, or the creation or enforcement of a rule.

The Act may consist of either an action or an omission.

The Act may be good, bad, or neutral.

Without an Act, there is no event for Justice to Judge.
Without an Actor, there is no one to whom responsibility can be attributed.
Without a Recipient, there is no affected condition for Justice to recognize or repair.

But nowhere within this mechanism sits the Judge.

And without a Judge, the event remains Unjudged.

Some examples:

Lightning strikes a person (the Act exists, the Recipient exists, but there is no Actor).
A person hates his neighbor (the Actor exists, the Recipient exists, but there is no Act).
A person burns a flag (the Act exists, the Actor exists, but there is no Recipient).

Fourth, the Event (The Object of Justice) may be a prerequisite for Justice to occur, but the event alone does not fully account for the human feeling of Justice.

Murder: An intentional or culpable killing without sufficient justification.
Execution: A killing performed by an Authorized Actor pursuant to an institutional judgement.
Honor killing: A killing motivated by the restoration of perceived family or group honor. The term explains the motive but does not legitimize it (at least in most nations today).
Mercy killing: A killing motivated by the claimed reduction of suffering, often under contested conditions of consent and warrant.
Suicide: The Actor and Recipient collapse into the same entity. This case is particularly interesting since the Actor committed the Act upon themselves.
Abortion: An intentional killing of an unborn person. This is another interesting case because the argument appears to hinge on whether the unborn is a person capable of occupying the position of Recipient.
Revenge killing: A killing motivated by the desire to repay an earlier wrong.
Genocide: A form of killing in which the Recipient is targeted, at least partly, because of group identity, usually as part of a broader collective project.
Collateral damage: A killing framed as the unintended secondary consequence of another authorized or strategic Act.

The term does not merely describe the event. It removes the language of the Act itself and attempts to sanitize it.

Many different terms can be applied to the same basic Object of Justice.

Each term qualifies a different element of the Object — the Actor, the Act, the Recipient, or the relationships between them — and thereby changes the event’s normative meaning.

But it doesn't stop there.

The legal profession takes this vocabulary one level further:

1st degree murder: Adds prior intention, planning, or another legally specified aggravating condition.
2nd degree murder: Preserves the judgement that the killing was culpable murder but changes the structure of intent, deliberation, or planning.
Manslaughter: Preserves responsibility for the death while changing the degree or kind of culpability attributed to the Actor.
Attempted murder: Preserves murderous intent while removing the completed outcome.

These word pairings become forms of Classification and show that Justice does not evaluate only:

What did the Actor cause?

It also evaluates:

What did the Actor intend to cause?

What did the Actor attempt to cause?
How deliberately did the Actor proceed?
Why was the intended outcome not completed?

In other words:

Cause and Motivation.
Context and Circumstance.
Intent and Realization.

Legal terminology is not simply naming the Act more precisely.

It is reconstructing the Actor's relationship to the Act and the Act's relationship to the outcome.

The law keeps adding qualifiers because “A killed B”

does not contain enough information to determine how A should be Judged.

Fifth, another interesting question concerns not which terms exist, but which terms do not.

We do not have distinct, commonly used vocabulary for:

A soldier killing an enemy combatant.
A policeman killing a criminal.
A firefighter not saving a civilian from death.

What this suggests is that the meaning of an Act can be transformed by the roles of both the Actor and the Recipient.

Role establishes the expectations attached to each party.
Authority determines what the Actor may do;
Duty determines what the Actor must do;
Warrant determines whether that authority or duty applied under the particular circumstances.

These do not erase the Act.

They determine how the Actor’s relationship to the Act should be judged.

- ה -

The Mechanism of Justice

Taken together, the Mechanism of Justice seems to be structured around two interconnected components:

1. The Object of Justice,

At a bare minimum, The Object of Justice requires three elements:

The Act: What happened?
The Actor: Who did it?
The Recipient: To whom did it happen?

These elements establish the event that may call for Judgement.

2. The Quality of the Object of Justice,

The Act does not reveal everything necessary for Judgement. It must be further qualidied by:

Truth and Evidence
Context and Circumstance
Intent and Motivation
Authority and Warrant
A Judge

Without an Act, an Actor, and a Recipient, Justice is not triggered.

Without Intent, Context, Warrant, Evidence, and a Judge, Justice cannot reach a Judgement.

The first component tells Justice what exists to be Judged.

The second tells Justice how it may be Judged.

- ה -

Some cases to ponder:

Case 1. A U.S. cruise missile strikes a target in Iran and kills 175 innocent children. An AI system selected the target.

The Breakdown: The diffusion of the Actor and the abstraction of Intent.
The Analysis:
Is it the AI system? The software engineers who designed it? The officers who approved its use? The commanding officer who authorized the strike? The State itself?
Because the Act is distributed across an institution and a chain of decision-making, responsibility becomes diffused. Each participant performs only one part of the larger Act, making individual Accountability increasingly difficult to locate.
Intent also becomes abstracted. The AI does not intend in the human sense. The engineer may not have intended this particular strike. The commanding officer may not have intended the deaths of the children. The State may claim that the deaths were neither desired nor directly targeted.

The State will therefore describe the deaths as collateral damage, rather than murder.

The term does more than classify the event. It changes its normative framing. It moves attention away from the dead Recipients and toward the authorized strategic objective of the Actor.

This case suggests that when institutional Authority is sufficiently powerful, it can reshape the Context in which the Act is judged and legally absolve conduct that the human conscience may still experience as profoundly unjust.

Case 2. A father kills the person who murdered his daughter after the murderer is released on a legal technicality.

The Breakdown: The collision between Law and Justice.
The Analysis:
This is a direct test of the system’s Legitimacy.
The formal system — the Judge and the Institution — failed to deliver the expected Outcome because of a procedural or technical rule. The father therefore bypassed the Institution and imposed the consequence himself.
Legally, he lacked the Authority to do so and will be judged for Murder.
Emotionally, however, the public may feel deep empathy for his Intent. He appears to be restoring a balance that the formal system failed to restore.
The Act remains unlawful, but its motivation may feel understandable. The father’s lack of legal Authority collides with the public’s perception that the murderer deserved punishment.
This case highlights what happens when the formal Framework produces an Outcome that violates the visceral human feeling of Justice.
When Law and Justice diverge too sharply, the Institution may retain its Authority while losing its Legitimacy. The human feeling of Justice is met, the institutional definition of Justice isn't.

Case 3. A doctor is charged with murder after disconnecting a terminally ill patient from life support with the patient’s informed permission.

The Breakdown: The rigidity of the Category versus the purity of the Intent.
The Analysis:
The physical Act remains the same: one person knowingly brings about the death of another.
But the Intent is driven by compassion rather than malice. The Recipient requested the Act, and the Actor believed that continuing life would prolong suffering rather than preserve something the Recipient still valued.
If the Law recognizes only a binary distinction — lawful preservation of life or unlawful killing — it may be forced to classify the doctor as a murderer.
The legal category may therefore capture the physical Act while failing to capture the relationship between the Actor, the Recipient, the Intent, and the circumstances.
This case suggests that when the formal Framework lacks sufficient nuance to distinguish among different forms of Intent, Consent, Context, and Warrant, the resulting Judgement may feel deeply unjust.

Across all three cases, the Act of killing remains broadly the same.

But when the underlying dimensions of the Object change—Actor, Recipient, Intent, Context, Authority, Warrant, and Evidence—our Judgement of the Act changes with them.

And as the Judgement changes, so does our feeling of Justice.

- ה -

I used the extreme case of killing as an example, but the Mechanics of Justice apply to nearly every act.

Consider speaking an untruth:

A lie,
A white lie,
A hallucination (a term that has acquired a specific meaning in relation to AI).

Or cheating on your spouse:

An affair,
A Tryst,
A Second wife,
Infidelity.

These are all examples of what most humans would consider bad, what we might call Negative Justice.

But Justice is not limited to bad Acts.

Justice also applies to good, to Positive Justice.

And Positive Justice comes with some interesting twists.

First, there appear to be far more words associated with Negative Justice than with Positive Justice.

'Don't' appears to matter more than 'Do'.

"Thou Shalt Not" outweighs "Thou Shalt."

This pattern is visible in some of humanity’s earliest attempts to codify Justice.

The Code of Hammurabi is one of the oldest and most complete written legal codes to survive into the present. Developed during the reign of King Hammurabi (c. 1792–1750 BCE), the sixth king of the First Dynasty of Babylon, it served as a systematic collection of legal judgements intended to establish order and prevent the strong from oppressing the weak.

Written in Akkadian using cuneiform script, the surviving stele was discovered in Susa, in modern-day Iran, and is now preserved in the Louvre Museum in Paris.

Hammurabi’s Code is overwhelmingly a list of prohibitions and punishments — a long catalogue of “Don’ts,” with relatively few “Dos” scattered throughout.

The Ten Commandments, the rules handed down by God to Moses, follow a similar pattern:

Eight "Dont's."
Two "Dos."

Remember the Sabbath.

Honor your parents.

Proscriptive versus Prescriptive Justice

Western and Near Eastern paradigms of Justice tend to view Justice as a boundary, operating on the assumption that human behavior must be constrained by external limits.

In this model, justice is a fence.

The law does not necessarily tell you how to be a good person; it tells you exactly where the boundaries of acceptable behavior lie and what the retributive cost will be if you cross them. The focus is on individual infractions and restoring balance through punitive equalization (lex talionis — an eye for an eye).

Justice tells you what you must not do.

Interestingly, many Eastern systems of law and moral instruction lean more heavily toward the prescriptive. Rather than drawing a line that must not be crossed, they describe a path that should be followed.

Justice tells you what you ought to do.

Two major traditions illustrate this distinction particularly well.

The Chinese Framework: Li (禮; 예절 예), over Fa (法; 법 법)

Ancient Chinese philosophy explicitly debated the merits of the "Dos" versus the "Don'ts."

The Legalist school advocated for Fa (penal law) — a system very much like Hammurabi's, relying on strict rules and harsh punishments.

However, it was the Confucian ideal of Li (ritual propriety, etiquette, and moral duty) that became the bedrock of Eastern social justice. Confucius actively warned against relying on proscriptive laws, arguing that they fail to cultivate a moral compass.

As he states in the Analects:
"Guide them by edicts, keep them in line with punishments, and the common people will stay out of trouble but will have no sense of shame. Guide them by virtue, keep them in line with Li, and they will, besides having a sense of shame, reform themselves."
子曰：道之以政，齊之以刑，民免而無恥；道之以德，齊之以禮，有恥且格.

Here, justice isn't about punishing a crime; it is the active, daily performance of your specific duties to your family and society.

It is not primarily a list of "Dont's"
It is an intricate web of "Dos."
The Indian Framework: Dharma

In the Vedic tradition, the closest equivalent to Western law or justice is Dharma.

The term is notoriously difficult to translate because it encompasses cosmic order, social duty, moral conduct, obligation, and the proper way of living all at once.
Dharma is deeply prescriptive.
It describes the obligations a person is expected to fulfill according to their role, relationships, circumstances, and stage of life.
If Hammurabi says:
“Do not steal, or you will be punished,”
Dharma says something closer to:
“Act properly in accordance with your role, because the performance of that role helps sustain the order of the world.”
The difference is subtle but important.
One model begins with the prohibited Act.
The other begins with the required role.
The proscriptive model asks:
What must the Actor not do?

The prescriptive model asks:
What must the Actor do?

Both are concerned with Justice.

But they begin from the opposite directions.

Attribute	Hammurabi / Mosaic Law	Early Eastern (Confucian / Vedic)
Primary Focus	Proscriptive ("Don'ts")	Prescriptive ("Dos")
Enforcement	Retribution and deterrence	Social harmony and internalized shame/duty
Concept of Justice	Boundary-setting (protecting rights)	Role-fulfillment (maintaining the system)
System View	Society as individuals bounded by rules	Society as a network sustained by mutual duties

Second, injustice is felt not only when Negative Justice goes unremedied, but also when Positive Justice is denied.

“Unrewarded,” however, may be too narrow.

A Positive Act may go unseen.
It may be seen but misunderstood.
It may be attributed to the wrong Actor.
It may be acknowledged but undervalued.
It may be exploited by an Institution that benefits from the Act while refusing to recognize the person who performed it.
It may even be punished.

We use some of the most powerful words in our vocabulary to describe these Actors. Words such as Hero, Martyr, and Saint.

A soldier falls on a grenade to save the lives of others but is denied recognition by his government because of his race.
A whistleblower speaks the truth, only to be prosecuted by the government whose wrongdoing he exposed.
A person acts out of love and compassion, only to be crucified by the authorities.

In each case, the original Act is Positive, but the responsive Act is not.

The Institution fails to recognize the Act, attributes the wrong meaning to it, or actively punishes the Actor for performing it.

This reveals something important:

Justice does not end with the original Act.

Once the Act has been Judged, the Judgement and its resulting Outcome become another Act.

The original Actor now becomes the Recipient.
The Judge becomes a new Actor.
Recognition, reward, punishment, neglect, and erasure become new Acts that must themselves be Judged.
Positive Justice therefore concerns whether the response to a Positive Act properly reflects its moral value.

But Positive Justice is not simply the opposite of Negative Justice.

A harmful Act normally creates a claim for Repair.
A beneficial Act does not always create an equivalent claim for material Reward.

A parent who saves their child may not be owed money.
A friend who keeps a promise may not deserve a medal.
A doctor who properly cares for a patient may simply be fulfilling the duties of the role.

The Positive Act must therefore be evaluated against what was already expected of the Actor.

Did the Actor merely perform an ordinary duty?
Did the Actor perform that duty under extraordinary circumstances?
Did the Actor go beyond what the role required?
What did the Actor risk?
What did the Actor sacrifice?
What alternatives were available?

The same physical Act may carry a different moral meaning depending on who performs it.

A firefighter entering a burning building is performing a duty attached to the role.
A passing stranger entering the same building may be called a Hero.

Both may demonstrate courage.
Both may save a life.

But the relationship between the Actor and the expected Act is different.

Positive Justice therefore evaluates not only what good was produced, but how far the Actor moved beyond what could reasonably have been expected.

This may be why risk and sacrifice play such an important role in Positive Justice.

The greater the legitimate personal cost accepted by the Actor for the benefit of another, the more strongly the Act appears to demand Recognition.

I risked my life to save someone.
The risk becomes evidence of Courage.
I risked my freedom to expose the truth.
The risk becomes evidence of Integrity.
I surrendered my comfort to care for someone who could give me nothing in return.
The sacrifice becomes evidence of Compassion.

Yet Positive Justice becomes most emotionally powerful when these Acts are not merely ignored, but inverted.

The courageous person is called reckless.
The truthful person is called disloyal.
The compassionate person is called criminal.
The person who resists an unjust Authority is punished for disobedience.

Here, the injustice is not simply the absence of Reward.

It is the transformation of virtue into guilt.

This is where the Martyr appears.

A Martyr is not merely someone who suffers or dies for a cause.
A Martyr is an Actor caught between competing Judges.
One Judge declares the Act criminal, heretical, disloyal, or dangerous.
Another Judge declares the same Act courageous, truthful, sacred, or just.

The word Martyr therefore contains an accusation against the original Judge.

It says:
The person you punished was the person who should have been honored.

The same is true, in a different way, of the Hero and the Saint.

The Hero identifies an Act whose courage or sacrifice exceeded ordinary expectation.
The Saint identifies a life in which Positive Acts were performed so consistently that the Actor becomes a moral reference point for others.

These words do not merely praise the Actor.
They repair the moral meaning of the Act.

They are attempts by later Judges to correct an earlier failure of Justice.

This also explains why Positive Justice is frequently delayed.

The Actor may be condemned during life and honored after death.
A conviction may later become a pardon.
A traitor may later become a patriot.
A criminal may later become a liberator.
A forgotten soldier may receive a medal decades after the war.
A person erased from history may later receive a monument.

But delayed Recognition creates a peculiar and incomplete form of Repair.

The original Actor may no longer be alive to receive it.
The Reward cannot restore the years that were taken.
The apology cannot undo the punishment.
The monument cannot return the dead.

Posthumous honor repairs the Judgement recorded in social memory, but it cannot fully repair what happened to the Actor.

Positive Justice therefore contains an important asymmetry.

Negative Justice attempts to repair a harm already inflicted upon a Recipient.
Positive Justice attempts to correctly recognize the moral value created by an Actor.

Both can fail.

But when Positive Justice fails, the world does not merely overlook something good.

It may teach that Courage is foolish, that Truth is dangerous, that Compassion is weakness, and that obedience matters more than Justice.

The failure to recognize a Positive Act therefore affects more than the original Actor.

It alters what every future Actor believes is worth doing.

Fourth, Judgement and Justice are not the same thing.

Justice requires Judgement, but Judgement alone does not satisfy the feeling of Justice.

Judgement classifies the Act.
It attributes responsibility.
It distinguishes right from wrong. justified from unjustified, innocent from guilty, and worthy from unworthy.

But Judgement, by itself, changes nothing.

Judgement without an Outcome is merely classification

The Act has been named, but no consequence follows from the naming.

The guilty may be declared guilty but remain unpunished.
The innocent may be declared innocent but remain imprisoned.
The injured may be acknowledged but remain uncompensated.
The Hero may be recognized but remain dishonored.
The Judgement may be correct, yet Justice still feels incomplete.

An Outcome closes part of this gap by transforming Judgement into another Act.

The guilty person is punished.
The innocent person is released.
The injured person is compensated.
The falsely accused person is exonerated.
The forgotten Hero is honored.

But an Outcome alone may still fail to produce Justice.

Punishment does not necessarily restore what was lost.
Compensation does not necessarily erase the injury.
An apology does not necessarily rebuild trust.
Recognition does not necessarily return the years during which it was denied.

Judgement without an Outcome is merely classification

Outcome without Repair is merely Consequence.

And even Repair may not be complete.

Some injuries cannot be reversed.
The dead cannot be returned.
Lost time cannot be restored.
Betrayal cannot be made never to have happened.

In these cases, Repair may mean compensation, recognition, apology, restitution, protection, remembrance, or the restoration of dignity—not the literal reversal of the original Act.

This may be why the feeling of Justice is so closely connected to Closure.

Closure does not mean that the original disturbance has disappeared.

It means that the disturbance has been sufficiently acknowledged, Judged, answered, and incorporated into a new moral order.

The loop of Justice therefore appears to require several stages:

Act
→ Judgement
→ Outcome
→ Repair
→ Closure

If the Act is never Judged, it remains morally unresolved.
If the Judgement produces no Outcome, it remains merely declarative.
If the Outcome produces no Repair, the consequence may feel empty, excessive, or purely retributive.
If the Repair produces no Closure, the event remains alive in the minds of the Actor, the Recipient, and the surrounding community.

Justice is therefore not only the correct Judgement of an Act.
It is the completion of the loop opened by the Act.

Fifth, although Legitimacy and Authority may differ, anyone and everyone can become a Judge.

An institutional Judge may possess formal Authority: the recognized power to issue a binding Judgement and impose an Outcome.

An individual Judge may possess no such Authority.

Yet the individual still observes, interprets, evaluates, and forms a Judgement.

Because of this, when it comes to the feeling of Justice, individual Judges may matter as much as institutionally warranted Judges.

A court may declare an Actor innocent while the public continues to believe the Actor is guilty.
A government may declare an Act lawful while the Recipient experiences it as profoundly unjust.
An Institution may punish someone as a criminal while later generations remember the same person as a Hero or Martyr.
The institutional Judgement may determine the official Outcome.

It does not necessarily determine the final meaning of the Act.

In fact, institutional Judges are often beholden to individual Judges because the Judges themselves are also being Judged.

Was the Judge impartial?
Was the Evidence sufficient?
Was the process legitimate?
Was the Judgement proportionate?
Was the Outcome appropriate?
Did the Institution possess the moral Authority it claimed?

The Judge evaluates the original Act.
The public evaluates the Judge.

History evaluates the public.

And the individual may evaluate all of them.

This reveals another recursive feature of Justice:

The Judgement itself becomes an Act.

Once spoken, written, or enforced, a Judgement affects the Actor, the Recipient, and the surrounding community.

An acquittal may restore freedom.
A conviction may remove it.
A sentence may Repair an imbalance or create a new one.
A refusal to Judge may protect the innocent or abandon the injured.
Recognition may restore dignity.
Condemnation may destroy it.

Whatever follows the Judgement—punishment, reward, compensation, apology, neglect, or silence—also becomes an Act.

That new Act creates a new Actor, a new Recipient, and a new Object of Justice.
The Judge becomes the Actor.
The person originally Judged may become the Recipient.
The Judgement becomes the Act.

And the entire mechanism begins again.

Act
→ Judgement
→ Outcome
→ New Act
→ New Judgement

Justice is therefore not a straight line that ends when a verdict is issued.
It is a recursive process in which every attempt to resolve one Object of Justice may create another.

No Judge stands entirely outside the system.

The Judge is always also a possible Actor.

The Judgement is always also a possible Act.

And Justice itself is always subject to Judgement.

- ה -

It seems that analyzing the language of Justice reveals not only its underlying mechanics, but also several broader conclusions.

The Minimum Baseline:
If an event lacks even one of the following — Act, Actor, Recipient — it is beyond the remit of Justice.
The Qualifying Variables:
Context, Circumstance, Warrant, Motivation, and Intent determine how an Act should be understood and whether it can be justified.
The Systemic Bias:
When thinking about Justice, we focus far more on what an Actor must not do than on what an Actor ought to do.

“Don’t” outweighs “Do.”
The Sacrifice Multiplier:
In Positive Justice, sacrifice increases the perceived moral value of the Act.

In Negative Justice, the willingness to accept sacrifice may become evidence of Intent, calculation, or premeditation.
The Execution Constraint:
Anyone can judge, but only those granted sufficient Authority can impose an institutionally legitimate Outcome.

Not every Judge possesses equal Authority, and not every Judgement carries equal weight.
The Input Constraint:
The system does not judge the absolute Truth of an Act.

It Judges the evidence of that Act that can be perceived, verified, presented, and admitted.

Truth itself is not what enters the system.
Visible Truth is.
The Completion Rule:
Judgement and Justice are not the same.

Judgement is the evaluation of the Object of Justice.

Justice requires that the Judgement produce an Outcome, and that the Outcome produce some form of Repair.

Without an Outcome, Judgement remains Classification.
Without Repair, the loop of Justice remains incomplete.

In the next post (3/9) we will dive into the Judge and the act of Judging; Judgement.

- ה -

end of post 2/9

- ה -

Search This Blog

Unvermögen

Has Justice been Served? (2/9)

The Mechanism of Justice

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Transcendence and Morality: A Framework for a New Society

A Manifesto for the Age of Intelligent Machines (for people with Liberal leanings)

"It is What it Is."