I've been thinking . . .

Whether it is in the title of a movie or peppered through the news and social media, it is well nigh impossible to avoid the term "justice". That got me thinking about a couple of things.

While the official definition goes something like this:
>the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishment 1

In the context of what I have been seeing, I think the most appropriate definition for "just" would be:
>acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good 2

Which then starts baking my noodle. Why?? Because this raises what I believe is an even bigger question that must be answered before addressing justice.

Is Justice absolute or relative?

What??? Well, think about it. If "morally upright or good" is the unit of measurement for determining if something is just or unjust, then we are forced to address how morals and their practical applications are expressed globally and regionally.

If one country or culture holds that living on a piece of land constitutes ownership and another country or culture holds that no one can own land, which of these is just?

If one country or culture holds that certain articles of clothing are required or forbidden and another country or culture holds that anyone can wear whatever they want, which of these is just?

It seems all to often that the answer is "whomever has the most power (or guns)".

I don't have a clear answer for you today, but what do you think? Is justice absolute or relative? And is that a good or bad thing?

Courtesy of @son-of-satire