Why I hate the word Justice?

What is considered a just behavior?
From human perspective I define it as: Every human is free to do whatever he wishes with whatever he owns as long as he does not affect harmfully other creations (on his level of the creation hierarchy) in any way, shape or form.
This definition requires few other definitions: For example Ownership, Creation hierarchy and Free. If I go ahead and define every one of these concepts I will surly find out that I have used new concepts that need to be defined as will. And the circle will get exponentially so big where everyone will get lost and become confused. This is good for law makers, law enforces, lawyers, politicians, as well as sophisticated criminals and genociders. Genociders? I Just contributed new word to English and I will file for copy write protection. Just joking. See my view about copy right and patent laws. https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@theclear/patent-laws-under-my-court-wrath
Sorry for this interruption let us go back to the subject. Heir is why this methodology of defining legal and ethical terms is good for some.
Let us use an example to find our way out. A farmer butchers a sheep, cooks it and serves it to few homeless citizens. This action consists of two sub actions, for the action to be just; both sub actions must be just. Don’t rush to judgment it is not that simple.

--------------Before -----------------
Butchering the sheep:
• Dose the farmer really own the sheep? Who can say he does not. It was borne in his farm. Well, it depends how you defined Owner Ship. For example In the US you pay taxes on a home that you think you own, you only leasing the land for 99 years. From Wikipedia (A 99-year lease was, under historic common law, the longest possible term of a lease of real property. It is no longer the law in most common law jurisdictions today, yet 99-year leases continue to be common as a matter of business practice and conventional wisdom.)
Regardless of this law if makes sense or not many other similar laws exist/ed. Until recently, 2014, it was against the law for a worker to discuss his pay check amount with his co worker. In 1920s selling alcohols was banned and became illegal.

• Was the farmer free to carry out such action? How anyone can answer that for sure. Again it depends how you define free. May be he was visited by an alien and was threatened if he does not sacrifice the sheep he will be????.
• Is the sheep on the same level of creation? Who to answer this, another human, another sheep, alien, angle or god.
• Did he affect any other on the same level of creation? Yes, finally, the homeless were affected. Or were they? Oh sh*t, some might say no. The farmer is white and the homeless are not.

Will, how about the second sub action feeding the homeless. Common this is very clear the farmer did such a benevolent and kind act. Will, let us ask few questions.
• Does intent matter? i.e. Was the farmer running for elections? And if he was, to be fair we should ask how long he was doing such caring actions? Was he known for his generosity?...
• Was the sheep sick and it was dying any way? So he was hoping the homeless will get sick and die too.
• For what appear as a kind act there are two parties involved. The existence of both is equally important. Without one of them the action will never happened. The farmer and the homeless. Who should be praised for the action? I leave the answer to you.
• You have more questions add it heir ____________________________.
|
---------------- After-------------------
If I keep going, probably at the end you will be convinced that the farmer had committed a crime and must be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Now take this way of thinking and apply it to UN resolutions, 2008 Wall Street bail out or Israelite Palestinian conflict. Good luck with that.
See that is why some people thrive on this kind of defining terms and concepts to manipulate the masses to agree to their agenda and support it and even become willing to die or kill for it.
The take out is no matter how things look like go in the opposite direction of the first conclusion. And then find your way back to it only if you find a good reason to do so. That is the closest you can get to justice no matter how you define it.
Copyright agreement:
You are free to copy, share and reuse any word, sentence, paragraph or the whole damn thing.
You can claim it for yourself, use it for personal or commercial purposes.
As long as you keep this agreement attached to any portion you use.
Thanks for respecting yourself.