Comment by ben_w

I think "justice" is one of those words where people all think they're in agreement about it being good, but when you ask them what it means then suddenly they're all wildly divergent.

And that's the problem.

"Swinging one's fist" is more of a quote than an example here; for an example, consider that everyone agrees "murder is wrong", but we don't agree about abortion, euthanasia, deaths by police action, the death penalty, accidental civilian casualties during war, war crimes, or population liabilities if a large number of each people produce a small quantity of toxin that causes a statistically significant change in the life expectancy of the area. People protest these things, and some attempt crimes to force change on these topics.

Some say it's acceptable to use lethal force to prevent a homicide. Is it acceptable for anti-pollution protestors to vandalise gasoline supplies to reduce NOx emissions? Was it acceptable 20 years ago when we didn't have any obvious rapid path to electrification of road traffic, given that our economies are dependent on road transport?

A while before the 9/11 attacks, I saw a chain-email demanding action against the Taliban for their mis-treatment of women. When Afghanistan was invaded, I saw people upset about that, too (though in different ways, e.g. because the invading forces accidentally killed people by dropping food on their heads or bombing weddings because of the celebratory machine gun fire). Nobody was a fan of Saddam Hussein, but the second Iraq war was even more heavily criticised, despite UK/US leadership insisting Iraq had WMDs.

The boundaries here seem clean, crime vs. justice, peace vs. war, protest vs. terrorism, self defence vs. attack, but the closer I look the more I see these things as continuums.