An interesting question occurred to me in a discussion with a friend today. He noted how he didn't like staying with his grandmother because she was old and couldn't keep her house clean, to which I jokingly replied that he should cane her to teach her a lesson. Of course, he responded that that would be immoral, which prompted the question: why would it be immoral?

The obvious response of "It's wrong to beat your grandmother" raises another issue: what is the definition of right and wrong? Fundamentally, the definition of right relies on a comparison to the definition of wrong; the definition of wrong relies on a comparison to the definition of right. The trouble, then, lies in the fact that the definitions are recursive.

Even so, the concept of justice and fairness seems to lie within each human. My friend accurately pointed out that many children learn the phrase "That's not fair!" long before they learn any concept of justice. Even before that, babies seem to have a sense of right and wrong. If you take a bottle from a baby, it will likely cry. I responded that this was the human will to survive in action--the baby knows the bottle gives it nourishment, thus keeping it alive, and cries because its source of nourishment is now gone. But what if you take a toy from a baby--will it not cry also? The baby, then, seems to exhibit a concept of fairness (although perhaps it could be argued that somehow, a sense of joy is necessary to survival, the toy brings joy, and thus, the crying is just another manifestation of the will to survive--I don't have the scientific evidence to back such a claim up).

Where does this sense of fairness in regards to property come from, then? I considered that maybe it is an example of evolution. People needed certain items to survive; when taken, they complained or fought back; thus, the stronger survived.

Such a concept can be applied to the example of murder. At first glance, would it not seem those without a predilection against killing others would survive? However, the answer is no. Back in the early days of humanity, only those who could form communities--or packs--could survive. A loner would be fodder for all sorts of wild creatures or dangerous situations. A murderer cannot be trusted by others, and likewise may not be inclined to trust others, and thus would be left on his own; thus, natural selection may have occurred.

But even these examples have merely scratched the surface? Where, then, does concern for others unconnected to ourselves--such as starving people in Africa--come from? Is this societal pressure? I think so, but then were does this come from? What made society display concern for others who have no relevance to its own survival? Is this another relic from the early hunter-gatherer days? Is it a fear than an injustice anywhere could easily occur here? Or is concern for other societies simply an extension of the basic moral principles of society that apply to itself? But if so, why does that extension occur, i.e. how does a society take moral principles based around its own survival and apply it to the survival of another largely unconnected society?

Furthermore, is the traditional concept of justice at all universal? Are there some societies in which babies don't cry when a bottle is taken, or murder is not considered to be unacceptable? If yes, from where do those concepts originate; if no, then we are back to our original question, where do our concepts of justice, fairness, and morality come from?

i thought it necessary to post the definitions.
anyways imo our beliefs in morals come from two places: are environment and the traits we are born with. depending on how these two mix during our upbringing directly affects are understanding of each of these concepts.

vash, michael is challenging those very definitions.
my personal opinion? i don't think we should call somethiung right or wrong. rather, i think we should define things as 'harmful' or 'not harmful.' for example, taking a baby's bottle is harmful because it is the source of life for him (as michael pointed out.) by taking away a baby's source of life (the bottle), you are physically and mentally harming it. but not everything is black and white. i understand that there are many situations which cannot be defined quite easily, as they may or may not have long-term implications.

My belief is that Morals tend to associate with the words Honor and Respect while Justice tends to ly next to words like Fair and Equality.

Tough question. if I had to take a guess, I'd say that morals come from what the majority of the community or environment believe what should be right. For instance, the Mayans and the Aztecs believed human sacrifices were heavily practiced, while today, most people wouldn't even think about doing it. Although the term "right" is different from the 2 times, the definition is defined by the people.

But how does that explain a child who cries when a bottle is taken?

I'm not fully understanding what you mean. Do you mean that in some cultures, it is right to take away the bottle from the baby and let it cry, while not for others?

No, I mean that a baby tends to do it automatically, before imprinting by society.

Because he wants it. It's human instinct to fight for something you want.

It doesn't even have to be something that enables you to live. If you want something, then get to have it, and someone takes it away, you're going to be upset. You wanted that and you finally got to have what you'd been yearning for, but someone took it away. You're going to do what you can to get it back.

Why else would people get arrested for robbing others? They're taking away something the other person obviously wanted, thus making the other person upset and depriving them of something they had, something that makes them happy.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, man.

wow i actually read the whole thing, first i would like to comment on the wonderful passage.
I only have two points.
_Everything comes from our past experiences.
_Survival of the fitest

=D

I'm not sure if I read that post right but...

What is justice, moral, and fair, is pretty much pure opinion.

The question isn't "What are they?"; the question is, where do they come from, and are any universal?

I think justice and fairness is universal, but in a indirect way. For instance, nowadays, most or all people are viewed as equals, therefore, if one were to take away another's life, then if the murderer were to be killed, it would be fair. However, back in time, like the Roman Empire, a king would be viewed way more heavily than any peasant. With that said, if the king were to be killed, killing a peasant wouldn't be fair, because they viewed the king as someone with the upmost importance so killing hundreds or even thousands would be "fair." Well, that's just what I think.

thats why i posted them.

So don't just post them; debate about them.
Considering the age requirements for this site...

I'm pretty sure most, if not all people 13 years of age and above have a good idea of what these words mean, at least generally, without specific nit-picky details.

i did! read my original post!

These ideals are very simple and easy to grasp but the dark forces of the world have molded them into something sinster and manipulative.

Is it justice that Tookie was executed?
Is it justice that R. Kelly and Michael Jackson roam the streets?

Is it fair that the government uses drug money to fund the movement for imperialism?

And since when was homosexuality morally wrong?

For a number of people, I agree that societal pressure may play reason to their conforming to philanthropy. For a few others, I truly believe altruism is instinct.

Each society is made up of individuals who generally carry similar thoughts of what is fair and what is moral (though not always). I think this societal pressure can be explain if we focus on the smaller picture: indviduals. Individuals may display concern for others for selfish reasons or purely for the sake of what is right. Rightness in this case, I think, comes from experience: past and present, and I agree with you that the instinct to survive does influence how we act upon these circumstances. For example, people may want to rid starvation in Africa because it feels right. Why does it feels right? Because any kind of obstruction to our survival is wrong. Why is it wrong? Because since our inception and experiencing life, our innate goal is the continuation of it thus.

whoopsy-daisy.

In this, the 21st century, we are still divided into two main camps regarding the origins of our planet, a physical object we know to exist. Therefore to ask where justice, morals and fairness comes from would inevitably draw an less certain answer still, these being abstract concepts we cannot prove exist but for our actions which force their existence.

In law, there is legal justice and equitable justice. Legal justice is exercised according to precedence set by cases which came before, whilst equitable justice is practised at the judge's discretion.

Equity exists to ensure that which "fair and just; moral and ethical" (Hanbury & Martin Equity and Trusts , 16th ed., p1). Basically, it's to make sure people subject to the legal system are treated fairly.

The law evolved from the basic rules which governed small tribes and communities, the rules which allowed people to co-exist peacefully. It is the pursuit of peace which drives society's adherance to the law since injustice logically (though not necessarily) leads to anger and thus war.
This is not only unproductive but also hampers the [social] development and advancement of mankind, which, according Darwin's theory of evolution, is what all animals are ultimately programmed to do. Thus it could be said that the justice of origins can be found in ourselves and our pre-programmed instinct to further humanity, as efficiently as possible, i.e., peacefully.

Similarly, if you take a bottle from a baby, it is morally wrong because crying is a manifestation of two different intentions, which logically, but again not necessarily, leads to conflict. On a larger scale, this would be war, which could be seen as actively working against progression and thus morally wrong.

But of course, our morals are subject to our environment and upbringing and if you are taught that there is nothing wrong with taking a bottle away from a baby even if it cries, then clearly there will be moral distinctions with those who are taught it is wrong.

Fairness is a result of the concept of equality which is an intrinsic part of the make up of social beliefs. Without equality, what do we judge fairness by? Equality equates to comparison. It is only unfair if we are deprived of something someone else has.

Ultimately however, justice, morality and fairness are all co-dependant in terms of qualification. And all are at the discretion of the individual. It is our opinions which define our individual understanding of each concept, and our opinions are developed through society, which only teaches us these beliefs because we imposed them on ourselves (and thus society, or vice versa) through pre-determination. Thus rendering the origin of these concepts universal, if God did indeed make man equal.

Morals are decided by a community... How everyone is brought up. This is wrong, this is right... I just read Brave New World, for instance. A perfect example of that.

The social issues Huxley addressed still are evident social issues in today's world.

For example, in Brave New World, children are encouraged at an early age to engage in sexual activity. In today's world, sex is frowned upon.

Does anyone else see a problem with this?