Justice is a concept that is interpreted in different ways, depending on the field and contextual awareness. Human beings, as universal creatures, demonstrate both strength and imperfection, bright consciousness and epistemic uncertainty. In terms of justice, humans might not be as perfect as the truth itself, which means human justice may reflect human imperfections.
From your perspective, can human justice be as perfect as the truth itself?
Additionally, if you are interested in exploring the meaning of knowledge, you can participate in the second phase of my interdisciplinary project.
Learn more here:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Call_for_Participation_Second_Phase_of_the_Essence_of_Knowledge_Initiative
Yes, it can — if all the law schools in the world added discrete mathematics to their curriculum.
Zhengchao Ying Unfortunately lawyers often base their arguments in court on claims that they suspect or even know are false. Using discrete mathematics won't get you truth unless your premises are true.
Thank you all for your insights. Truth and justice get different shapes, depending on the context, individual beliefs, societal perceptions, and ontological explorations.
Human justice aspires to reflect objective truths about fact and fairness. Truth, in its purest form, is an abstract ideal unchanging, absolute, and singular. Justice, by contrast, is enacted by fallible beings interpreting evidence, motives, and societal values. This interpretive layer introduces room for error, bias, or incomplete information.
Consider the question reformulated as “Can human truth be as perfect as Justice?” it underscores how these questions are comparing apples and oranges. An interesting, more meaningful question is whether human justice can be as good as human truth.
Vincent Luizzi If Human Justice refers to verdicts delivered by the legal system, well, surely it is uncontroversial that mistakes are made, such that the innocent are convicted and the guilty are acquitted. Hence Human Justice can fall short of the Truth.
Pavel Dmitriev RE: "Хотите сказать что все адвокаты - лжецы?" (trans. "Are you saying that all lawyers are liars?"
It is the duty of lawyers to defend their clients. That may involve withholding information from the prosecution (unless specifically requested in, e.g., the legal process of "discovery") or presenting unlikely alternative possibilities to a jury in order to create "reasonable doubt" (in the legal sense). That may not involve actual lying, but it does involve ignoring or not revealing what one thinks is true.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology