I hadn't originally intended to have these two words alone together on one page. Basically it just worked out this way after trying to think of ways to split up a larger grouping of words onto smaller pages instead of having them all on one big page. The grouping is "Love, Compassion, Honesty, Justice, Reason and Intellectual Integrity" (the combination of words found on my home page where I explain that these are the concepts that I try to keep in mind when considering all of the various things that I write about on this web site). When I started to split them apart into smaller groups, it just happened to be that there was an even number. Thus, "Love & Compassion", "Honesty & Justice" and "Reason & Intellectual Integrity" are now three different pages. 

So, I'm still not sure whether or not "Honesty & Justice" belong together in any kind of way like my page on "Love & Compassion" clearly shows those two words being related. I'll leave it like this for now though. I guess, if anything might really tie them together, I can say this... Whether or not I agree with someone's concept of Justice or the scales on which they choose to weigh issues of right and wrong, I can say for certain that as long as they are being honest (in the way I describe it below), at least I'll be able to have a reasonable sense of what to expect. Of course I'll never know for sure what someone else is really thinking deep inside the protected walls of their own mind, but all I have to go on is what they share with me in the first place. 

Honesty 
Justice 


Honesty: It's more about "being true" than about "telling the truth". 

It is about being true to one's self first and foremost and then to one's own, personal convictions and values as opposed to always necessarily telling correct, factual information. Within a framework of acknowledging the nature of their own concept of reality, honesty is a measure of the degree to which one lives according to what they consider to be healthy. Some may refer to this as integrity. In any case, whatever the most appropriate term is, I think you get my point. Do you? 

about the distinction between "being true" and "telling the truth"
Here's an example from history...
I think it was a good and healthy thing for certain German's to lie about hiding Jewish people in their attic during the Nazi Holocaust. It was in lying that they were able to help innocent people avoid certain death at the hands of men who wanted them dead for no good reason, but simply on the basis of their genetic and/or religious link to a certain ethnic people group. 

Now, was what they did by lying a dishonest thing? I think not. To lie in that situation for them was to be true to what is in the attitude of their minds. Since the predominant aspect of their attitude was Love, they acted in a Compassionate way towards the innocent Jewish victims. In their attempt to be honest with them selves, certain German's decided to lie to the Nazis for the sake of saving the lives of innocent Jews. These occurrences of lying (the telling of incorrect factual details) were acts of compassion which were done in full honesty relative to the attitude of love in their minds.  

What do you think about honesty?


Justice: What is fair anyway? Who decides? 

The truth is, we create our laws in society based on a consensus of personal conclusions and desires. This is all it is and this is all we have to go on. Like it or not, justice is based on the subjective will of the people flowing from their own personal experiences in and thoughts about life with others. No matter how hard they pound on their pulpits and no matter how many chants they chant and no matter how many historical figures they quote, it just simply is not based on any kind of unverifiable, other-worldly or infinitely objective, absolute moral code. Even though most people probably still disagree even with this simple fact of life in "civilized" societies, what's fair is what the majority or the most powerful or the most flamboyant or the most successful says is fair. 

One might say, "Well, then that's not fair." To which I'd have to say, "Who says?" According to the ones that made the laws, it certainly seemed fair at the time. "Ya, but everyone can see that they were wrong, right?" Well, maybe we see things differently than they did and perhaps we should change the law so that it more appropriately reflects how we as a society think about the particular issues at this point, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that any one person or group ever has the absolute truth on what's fair and what's not. It's just not a category that the universe gives us any legitimate data to go on. The universe is completely silent about justice. Any justice that will ever be is up to us to put in place and to maintain. 

As for changing the justice system, changing laws etc... Wherever I'm at, whatever kind of justice system is in place, if I see things about it that I'd like to see changed, I choose to take it as it really is and work from within the system to change it as I go along through the established means of that particular system. Of course, there may in fact be a system which is set up in such a way so as to lock it self in place and which is impenetrable by the attacks of asking the hard questions. It may be completely walled off from genuine inquiry let alone being open to the idea of debate. In such cases, I'd not ask the question, "What's fair?", but I might say something like "I don't like this present situation. Here's why... Now, who's with me on this? What can we do about it? What are you willing to risk? How much is changing this particular thing worth to you?"    

What do you think about justice? 


Honesty and Justice in action as I see it...
Again, like I said at the beginning of this page, I'm still not exactly sure whether or not these two concepts go hand-in-hand to form a logical sequence of thoughts and actions or anything like that. All I can say for sure is that I'd have an easier time trusting an unfamiliar justice system that showed it self to be concerned with the issue of honesty (the way I described it above) than one that wasn't. 

One last idea to bring these two concepts together...a short, hypothetical example, an analogy... 
First of all I recently heard someone say that "an analogy is a comparison in which the fundamental similarities outweigh the fundamental differences". Now, all analogies break down, but for the sake of example, I ask you to consider each point in this one to actually be true. Remember, this is completely hypothetical anyway. So, it's not like I'm actually asking you to believe something here. Just consider it this way as if all of these points really are true. 

Child 'A' is found dead in Adult 'A's house. 
Adult 'A' is accused of killing Child 'A'. 
Adult 'A' in fact did not actually kill Child 'A'. (you'll just have to assume this point is true for the sake of the example) 
There is no evidence in the case that could be used to prove Adult 'A's innocence. 
All circumstantial evidence in the case is being used by the prosecutor to suggest that Adult 'A' killed Child 'A'. 
Adult 'B' knows for sure that adult 'A' did not in fact kill Child 'A'. (you'll just have to assume this point is true for the sake of the example) 
In adult 'B's mind, adult 'B's story does not seem credible enough all by it self to convince a jury of Adult 'A's innocence. 
Adult 'B' decides to make up a story that is more convincing (and impossible to prove incorrect) in order to help Adult 'A'. 
Adult 'A' is found not guilty on the basis of Adult 'B's testimony alone. 

Now, I know there are all kinds of problems with this kind of analogy, but just work with me here. If you were Adult 'A' in this situation, would you rather have Adult 'B' get on the stand and tell "the truth" in order for you to be found guilty of and be punished for something that you are completely innocent of or would you rather have them lie in order for you to go free like you should? Is lying in this situation a matter of being dishonest or is it a matter of telling incorrect factual details while being completely honest relative to one's attitude and what they actually know to be real and actual about the case?  Really, what do you think? 


What about what religious people think of lying?
Of course there are certain religious people that would say that this kind of situation would be a perfect opportunity to "take the moral high ground" and make a stand for what's right. The problem though is that not even all religious people actually see it the same way. Even when I was still a believer I thought that God would most likely side with the liar in a case like this. I thought, "Why would God (who, according to the Story, cares so much for people that He'd rather die than live without them) care more about the correct telling of factual details than about the health and well-being of persons?" 

I'm no longer a believer, but when I was, I was a Biblical theologian (one who reads about, studies about and seeks to come up with new and helpful ways of thinking about and understanding God relative to and based on interpretation of the Bible). Even now, as a non-believer, I still do think I have a better interpretation of the Bible-God to offer to those whom are still believers than the one most of them are still holding onto. So, for me, God was a Person (part of the Community of Persons known to the Christian religious world as the Trinity) who was more concerned about seeking to love and care for other persons relative to all of their various situations in life than about whether or not they were following some narrow code of morality and ethics. 

What would really have been served on that hypothetical day in court had Adult 'B' really told the correct factual details? Justice? Perhaps, but if that's your idea of justice, then please, don't ever stick up for me when I'm in need of an advocate. I'll be just fine rotting away in hell, or staying right here in my selfish, immature and unjust world where people actually care more for each other than they do about reciting the exact factual details of any given situation they may be faced with. Honestly, is it Just to punish the innocent? 

So, really, what do you think about Honesty and Justice (my understanding of them or yours)?