Justice, morals, and fairness, How are they defined? Options

[*mipadi*]

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?

[vash1530]

i did! read my original post!