Some of us are old enough to remember Baskin Robbins’ commercials advertising their 31 different flavors of ice cream. An ice cream connoisseur’s paradise. You could literally try a different flavor every day and depending on the month you’d have to flip the calendar page before you’d tried them all. Variety is the spice of life, a welcome quality in so many aspects of our existence. One place however where variety does not belong is in the realm of justice.
Justice is a critical principle and a foundational pillar of our civil society. Unfortunately, as has occurred with so many of our fundamental principles a certain degree of fluidity has been inflicted upon it by those who are served by its ambiguity. In an effort to be clear, allow me to review what justice is. To define justice we must first define the concept of law. Law is, as defined by Aristotle, “Reason, free from passion”. Justice in turn is the “equal, impartial application of the law”. Therefore, when any party is held to the law they should be viewed equally and as such no regard given for any qualities that may distinguish them, and nor should passion be allowed to stir in response to any commonality or contrast in such. Justice, as they say, must be blind.
Over the past several years there has been an increasing clamor for various forms of justice. These range from economic justice, to gender justice, to social justice, to racial justice, to environmental justice, or is it climate justice, and more will undoubtedly be birthed in the days to come. The problem with these flavors of justice is that although the underlying concerns they stem from may be valid, the diversification of justice is anything but. Along with a myriad variety of justices comes the inevitable clash or conflict of the varieties. What is one to do when such conflicts arise? How shall we decide which variety of justice prevails? Is my justice more just than yours, or yours more just than mine?
Before you become too concerned about resolving the most just among the forms of justice allow me to put you at ease. The government is here to help. Embodied with the most honest, sincere, and selfless among us it will devise a guide, a rubric if you will, to evaluate each instance and to see to it that the proper justice is done. The rubric will evaluate criteria such as gender/gender identity, age, race, creed, cause, socioeconomic status, sexuality, quotas based on proportionality, and last but certainly not least, party affiliation. And there you have it, the justice that is the “most justest” will prevail.
If it sounds kind of silly, it is a bit perhaps, but you can witness it occurring today. In recent weeks whether you were punished and ridiculed for not complying with Executive Orders, or whether you were permitted and praised for doing so was based entirely on your purpose. Further, whether or not you were charged and prosecuted for certain crimes was entirely based on what cause you served, rather than on your actions measured against an objective application of the law. That, ladies and gentleman, is literally as far from justice as you can get. We all believe in and desire to see justice done, but you cannot serve a principle by sacrificing it. Oh, and let’s not even talk about freedom of speech, wait, am I allowed to say that?
