- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
In Soviet schools, socialism was defined as “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work“, and communism – “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs“.
So if justice is defined as the equivalent between what is earned and what is received, then communism is unfair – in the sense that in it the total amount of good produced allows everyone to live well, even those who do not work.�
In fact, this is exactly what is happening now in most Western European countries, where the amount of unemployment benefits allows you to avoid poverty. And it does NOT happen, for example, in the Russian Federation, where even a significant part of working and retired people live in poverty.�
So justice, in its literal sense , is not the lot of the weak, but of the strong. For only the strong can make the greatest effort to get the most out of it. And then they will decide whether to share with the weak, which is unfair, or leave them to die, in the name of final justice…
That is why, as Dovlatov rightly emphasized (and many others before him), “there is something higher than justice, and this is mercy.”
Justice is for the smart and honest. Justice is the highest of human virtues. This was known by the ancients, but forgotten by modern “civilized” people. Justice – the ability to act (deal with things) according to knowledge-truth (VEDo).
Both rich and poor need justice. People want to live normally, and they see justice in this. Have a decent job, a decent salary, social elevators, opportunities for self-realization, etc.
Yeah. And when all else fails, the poor and weak unite and collectively become stronger than the rich and strong, who are a minority. But the rich and powerful, on the contrary, tend to degenerate in their descendants and lose everything. It is here that they are explained in the most lucid way for justice.
In my opinion, there is a catch in the question itself. The weak and poor dream of EQUALITY, not justice. Justice is different, and everyone has their own way of defining it. Yes, and the answers of the guests, too, for the most part, are about equality, and not about justice…
Equity is the relation of one to the other, in accordance with the contract, compensating for the loss of property, energy and other losses stipulated in the contract! Where is the lot of the poor and weak here?
Well, let's talk again about justice and those who advocate it. To the poor and weak ones you mentioned, I would also add schoolchildren. These three categories of the population “speak about justice, and more often -” about injustice. At the same time, they usually understand justice as a benefit for themselves personally, and injustice for them is, respectively, the lack of benefit or, more precisely, when something useful did not get them or got, but in a small amount.
This understanding has little relation to justice as such, but this understanding is firmly established in the minds of most of our citizens and seems to be registered there for a long time, and perhaps forever.
Justice- this is the principle of the socialist economy and, accordingly, the distribution of material goods produced by the people in the corresponding enterprises, and not talking about the poor, humiliated and offended, and not about the “weak”, but about honest and decent people, this is a Leninist principle, and he in no way set the goal of dividing people into poor and weak , rich and arrogant (“strong)”, because now the problem of social inequality, which is expressed in the concept of” injustice”, is already acute.
History does not forgive mistakes, interference in the course of historical processes in Russia in 1917 created the prerequisites for the establishment of a terrorist dictatorship of the proletariat, which of course fought against injustice at the cost of huge human sacrifices and violence, but this is already imprinted in the life code of Russians, in their minds and activities, and is manifested in time, because time again returned to us, tk justice was achieved at the cost of human sacrifice, not peaceful democratic reforms.
What does it mean to be strong? Profit from speculation, deceiving people, or live according to your conscience and work, but in poverty? No one person is able to do much more in their lifetime than another person, so that this is reflected in a huge property gap. Everything else is an explicit and / or indirect assignment of the results of someone else's work. Hence the question of justice.
Is the “strong” the one who takes the last thing from the poor…???
Moreover, not by himself, but by resorting to the “orders” of other”forces”, the madmen who obeyed(Palitsaev, “guards”)…
This is the weakling…goaded and to the side…this is how it looks from the outside…a leech…
Bring this “ruler”to any region of the country and leave in the middle of the field without protection…it will be possible to find out very quickly how people “relate”to it…
Equity is based on the point of view of exchange… on the terms of the agreement, as well as mutually beneficial services. For a wolf, it is only fair that he outwitted the shepherd and slaughtered the sheep, dragged it away, but the unjust bear unjustly took away his prey. People join communities, wolves gather in packs – and there is their own justice, with which they agree. If people are brought up in the same way, they will also agree on what is fair and what is not. And if they studied in different traditions, then they will have to agree on what is fair and follow the contract, or fight for their idea of what is fair… Then, of course, everything is decided by the product of intelligence and strength. Intelligence – the ability to evaluate many points of view, find a way out that is acceptable to most stakeholders, and the ability to convey this interest to them, enlisting the support of the power that belongs to them. So communication and the ability to observe are incomparably more important for justice than power… and the poor and weak are the former strong ones who were broken because they relied on strength, those who were unable to communicate and negotiate and want someone to do it for them now.
Justice is a compound word. It consists of two bases: truth and knowledge. Relate to the distribution of benefits. Justice is distribution based on the knowledge of the truth, without lies or deception. In ancient times, this referred to the division of joint production from hunting, wars, income from joint agriculture and trade. Now we are talking about modern benefits, depending on the contribution to the overall product. But from ancient times to this day, the system of hierarchies interferes with the distribution of goods and the creators of goods do not have control over their distribution, so it is not easy to know the truth about the distribution of goods and many believe that there is no justice. In my opinion, there is. You just need to know the truth and understand where lies and deception are. So people “poor and weak” are deprived of the opportunity to know the truth in the flow of propaganda and lies that perpetuate their flawed position, and those who do not agree with this state of affairs strive for the distribution of benefits based on the knowledge of the truth and demand justice..
“Justice is the lot of the poor and weak” is a well-known and popular concept of satanists, liberals, apes and other marginal evil spirits. But no one has canceled the freedom of choice, if you want to be an adept of the sect of perverts – a rainbow flag in your hand and a drum with cookies on your head.
The question, in my opinion, is a bit crooked.
The poor and weak themselves, when they stand up for their rights, most often get something (homeless people get free housing, for example, wheelchair users are provided with convenient ramps, etc.).
Another thing is that most of all they advocate “justice for the poor and weak”, professional ratalschiki and radicals. Both of them, in reality, wanted to spit on both the poor and the weak and on “justice”, because each of them seeks to solve exclusively their own problems, among which, mainly, either ambition or a tendency to violence. Let me remind you that after the victory of the Nazis in Germany, most of the radicals from the rotfrontovtsy detachments turned out … among the stormtroopers and SS men.
Finally, the word “justice” has more meanings than the number of people on earth.
if you put a kilogram weight on one side of the scale ,and a two-kilogram weight on the other, then the latter will outweigh, this is justice. a different kind of justice is necessary, precisely so that the deprived do not realize their interest in uniting to increase their political weight
Historically, civil law theory has been shaped by Babylonian kings, Greek archons, Roman Patrician philosophers, English lords, and American presidents. Fuck how poor and weak everyone is, uh-huh.
It is wrong to call “all good things” justice. It is extremely dangerous for society when, as now, almost everyone forgets the correct definition of “justice”. It's very simple. This IS AN ORDER WHERE EACH SUBJECT GETS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DESERVE. Pay attention to the word “merit”. It's key. Since the merits of different people are always different, this means that no equality is fair, except for equality at the start, i.e. when no one else has any merit.
The goal of justice is to make morally decent behavior the most profitable for each subject, and unworthy behavior the most unprofitable. That is, it is necessary so that everyone can be sure that if they work honestly, bringing real benefits to others, they will be able to provide for themselves financially and even achieve a high position in society – higher than those who bring less benefit. In other words, equity allows you to maximize the use of human talents and abilities for the benefit of society. The more fairly the rules of the game are laid out in the system, the more individuals will sincerely try to bring it the greatest benefit by honest work– not only fanatics and idealists, but also pragmatically minded people, which is the majority.
If you live in a society where the vast majority of people believe that you can only become rich through clever schemes and corruption, and few people want to use their skills and talents, because it is obvious to everyone that this will not get a decent reward, then you live in an extremely unfairly arranged society.
It follows from the above that the poor and weak, as well as the rich and strong, need justice when they feel that they have not received a worthy reward for their services or have been punished for nothing. But many, unfortunately, simply confuse the concepts. Equality, which socialists love so much – is a completely different value, in most cases incompatible with justice. When we donate money to the poor and miserable simply BECAUSE THEY ARE MISERABLE AND MISERABLE, we are doing an injustice. Mercy for criminals is also unfair. However, according to Christian moral standards, these are wonderful things to do. They are really good and appropriate in many cases, but they have nothing to do with justice.
Justice is a relative thing, it depends on a person's worldview. Many rich people believe that their wealth is not luck, but a fair reward for the fact that they worked hard and made good decisions. They may be partly right. The “strong” and rich may consider their actions fair and impose their decisions on others.
A vivid example is the fascists, who considered their actions fair. They did something that we still remember with horror. And we clearly do not consider fair actions on their part.
Err, sir.Justice is the lot of real people.To which the rich and poor are subject.Hypothetically imagine that Emelyan Pugachev will come to you and expropriate all your goods and life.You will be the first to speak of justice.
justice is not the lot of the weak, but the willingness of the strong to help the weak. It has been proven that anyone who thinks of themselves as strong and oppresses the weak is actually just mentally ill and sadistic, and first of all such a moral freak is afraid of pain and death. Such a person is uncomfortable being equal among equals. He just needs to assert himself in front of someone. And humiliation in front of a superior is for such a rule of the game and a payment for the opportunity to humiliate others. But, the fear of death makes such a supposedly strong, at once, weak hysterical. In the Russian system of government, such moral freaks prevail. By definition, these are sado-masochists who are ready to grovel before their superiors and oppress those who, for some reason, are not ready to resist. Mark Zakharov's film”Kill the Dragon” shows this.
I think it all depends on the level of development and awareness. If you don't understand, (judging by the fact that you asked the question) you might not understand. But don't worry, if you need to, they'll take everything away, even if you don't do anything.) At the same time, there will be an opportunity to reflect on this question)))
Justice is the truth/ People who live fairly, have clean energy, a pleasant appearance, and are interesting to communicate with. Men who are focused on justice are called real, and women are called good. In general, this is something that we should all strive for, but, unfortunately, we are moving further away from it.
Generally a spatial formulation . There is no justice, there is an individual's point of view or outlook.The weak one relies either on the will of the victor , and the poor one on the one who made him poor or his ancestors. Class inequality has always existed. And there were always those who smoothed it out – it's only a matter of time ….there is nothing eternal.
There is no justice there is just terminology for what would fill the brain with nonsense . Everyone stands for justice …When it is profitable or very necessary . It's just that everyone unfortunately does not realize that all privileges and short-term benefits are not eternal, as are the views of the world of the recipient… And the authorities usually go crazy with impunity. You don't have to appeal to the symbol. A call to account .
This is usually only voiced by the poor and weak. In fact, the rich and powerful also stand up for justice, because it's scary – from the bag and from prison do not promise. But they keep quiet, don't voice it, because if you do justice right now, you'll have to share.
To speak about the highest justice, in my opinion, is meaningless:
-If you believe in a higher power, then justice will definitely prevail, and it's stupid to start being indignant ahead of time – after all, no one knows what will happen tomorrow.
“And if you don't believe it, where would it come from?” Only natural selection.
Therefore, we can only talk about justice within a particular group, and it is different for different groups.
A noble lion who understands the value of every life and saves zebras from their relatives is doomed either to be killed by his fellow humans or to starve to death.
It is not always possible to determine “the fool himself” or “unlucky”, for that you can always find an excuse for yourself, and blame the neighbor.
Justice has two interpretations, they are visible in the word itself, this is for the literate.
1 DIVIDE CORRECTLY…this is what you use when you profess to fight, hence all your squabbles and wars.
2 DO THE RIGHT THING… that's why you kill everyone in all wars because it contradicts your morals and the law involved in the struggle.
You can't create anything, that is, do the right thing in the fight..
– So think about who you are, I'm too lazy to tell you, you still have nothing to understand.
In the USSR, there was an equalization process. But the excess of income of the rich and poor was only 4 times. Therefore, the poorest person. I ate meat and drank milk every day. Chas 15 times. And even the middle class doesn't eat meat,milk,or cheese every day. Therefore,pigsties,dairy plants, villages and much more have disappeared. There is no demand.
The statement itself is controversial, but the concept of justice is as old as the world, and we can see the stages of its comprehension here in the comments. In my opinion, it certainly exists, but another thing is that the knowledge of this concept is a very difficult process, lasting a lifetime
here the question is about what a person is and why it exists and how it develops in time and space and justice is needed for everyone both well fed and not too rich and not very much especially since the world is one
What's going on at the moment? People are beaten into their heads with their feet and hands that they are slaves. All articles, in all news feeds and blogs, are written to inspire a person that there is no justice and most importantly it is not needed. A world of impunity and permissiveness leads to the disappearance of civilization. Look at what is being done with the constitution at the moment,…., all forget the word choice, the word freedom, the word order. People are slowly getting used to the fact that no one can hear them, and why listen to them, they are beggars. Regardie is created, then the constitution is changed, then…..we will soon see who is in our country….people or slaves.
In life, everything is relative, from which side to look,I believe that in our world, you need to try to order, a certain order, and not so that today is one thing, tomorrow is another, the day after tomorrow is the third, this is chaos, in our country it is similar. We need order. And who says that justice is the lot of the weak, these are people with a sick mind, they reason like this when they are doing well, but only they are just a little bit on the tail stepped on they shout loudest about justice, even in ancient times, wise rulers noted that it is more profitable for a person to pay for his work, then he is better
The question is a little wrong, from the wrong side…cause and effect are mixed up . Most often, it is the honest and just who are poor because they cannot lie, deceive, achieve everything by force, and generally cause inconvenience to other people.
When people speak up for justice for the most part, it's THE COURT . and a salary of at least � � 50% of the added value , I emphasize FOR THE MOST PART ! There's a lot more to it� these are the particulars
Justice is largely determined by objective (evolutionary) reasons.
If the existing social (state-judicial and economic) order strongly does not correspond to these canons, then people who are infringed begin to fight for their rights, including calling for justice.
For example, watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InNLWFK7-qE
You'll understand right away.
Or for example, it is shown (I don't remember the research, unfortunately) that in primitive tribes hunters (and other getters relying on luck) are willing to share their prey among themselves, but gatherers / farmers (and other getters relying on labor) are no longer there-because there is no element of luck and “feeding lazy people” is largely evolutionarily unfounded.
Or, for example, in economic games (I read about this in Robert Sapolsky), people themselves do not strive to be “as honest as possible”, but are ready to punish other people for “blatant dishonesty” even at a loss to themselves.
(usually in such games, participants are given a small amount, say$ 10, after which they interact according to some rules with other participants, winning or losing this money)
There is no objective justice. This is not a law of physics. The tendency to rely on “fairness” is a typical cognitive bias. Подробней можете прочитать тут: https://futurist.ru/articles/1055-vera-v-spravedliviy-mir-i-eshche-2-oshibki-mozga-kotorie-ostavlyayut-vas-v-durakah