Can you defend your definition of justice?

For any who have debated before, you will know that Justice is perhaps the most controversial issue faced by debaters in a round, and more often than not becomes the deciding factor in the resolution. So I am going to open up the floor to anyone who wishes to try me - I invite you to pick a definition of justice - any definition - and defend it to the best of your ability. This is not a resolution per se so much as a contest of argumentative skill. My opponent will take the floor and the first argument, and I will simply negate.

I ask only that you be very clear in your chosen definition and your defense thereof, and please do not take up the challenge if you do not intend to see it through to the end.

Thank you!

I'd like to formally apologize to my opponent for missing the last round, though he has also missed a round, so I s'pose we're even. With that, I'll get right down to my position in the debate. I'd like to remind everyone that my challenge is to "pick a definition of justice - any definition - and defend it to the best of your ability." The definition I have chosen comes from Google's 'definitions of justice on the web' which can be cited here [1].

Justice - judgment involved in the determination of rights and the assignment of rewards and punishments

:: UPHOLDING MY DEFINITION ::

There is no doubt in my mind that I have chosen an indestructible definition of justice for my opponent to defend. When it comes to rights, people are always looking for justice - a decision based on what's considered to be fair. Whether or not people agree on what is or isn't just, or the factors that should determine justice is irrelevant; the fact is that to win this debate I simply had to provide one definition that I felt to be true. My opponent must prove that the definition of justice that I have provided is incorrect in order to have won this debate. Like another definition of Justice (an official who presides over a court), this definition is non-negotiable, and therefore I have won this debate.

:: MORAL RELATIVISM ::

Now assuming I had actually tried to define what constitutes 'just', the argument I would introduce is moral relativism. Moral relativism refers to the fact that what is considered just or moral varies from person to person or from culture to culture. Similarly, Wikipedia's definition of justice notes this discrepancy:

[2] Justice - Closely linked to fairness, views of what constitutes justice vary from society to society (and person to person)

Because I believe that moral relativism exists (meaning there are different and opposing views regarding what is fair or right in various aspects of theology, the law, etc.), I do not believe that in every situation, it is easy or even possible to define what the 'just' decision/answer is. HOWEVER, I do believe that the CONCEPT of justice can be defined -- it's a guiding principle based on fairness for which a social organization attempts to 'do the right thing' so to speak.

Wikipedia notes several different 'types' of justice, including justice as harmony, justice as divine command, justice as natural law, justice as human creation, justice as authoritative command, justice as trickery, justice as a mutual agreement or justice as a subordinate value. Often in determining what is 'just' in a particular situation, a different variation of justice can be used in opposition. I'm not sure if my opponent was intending for me to argue that one form of justice is superior to all the others; if so, that should have been made clearer -- I apologize and would take up another debate with that intention in mind. However, for this particular debate, I have fulfilled my burden of providing not one but two definitions of justice that I do not believe my opponent can negotiate.

At this time, I guess I'll just kind of wait and see what Con has to say in order to determine where to go from this point (2 forfeited rounds)...

:: SOURCES ::

[1] http://www.google.com...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

"please do not take up the challenge if you do not intend to see it through to the end." -- CON

I think it's kind of funny/ironic that Con was concerned about forfeits, though he himself has forfeited every around post the initial R1 introduction. Anyway, I s'pose that means that all of my arguments still stand. To break it down once more, here was my point -- the word 'justice' absolutely can be defined and is done so all over the web, in dictionaries, etc. Now what CONSTITUTES justice, be it socialism, pro-life, pro-choice, totalitarianism, democracy, etc. etc. etc. is a completely different story. Personally, I don't think that what constitutes justice can be accurately defined, because I believe in the concept of moral relativism. However the bottom line here is that I was supposed to uphold a definition of justice - any definition - and I have provided 2 which I feel are inarguable.

For instance, a Justice is one who presides over a court. Justice also refers to a decision. For instance, if at the end of a trial, you heard one person say "Justice has been served" and another person say "Justice was not achieved" then my point has been made. Whether the speakers were 'right' or 'wrong' in terms of their opinion is irrelevant -- what's pertinent to this debate is the fact that the word justice here has the same absolute meaning. It refers to the decision, conclusion or - you guessed it - JUDGMENT. One can also say "I judge you when you use drugs," meaning I conclude an opinion of you. That's yet another definition of justice, but I digress. In any event, vote PRO. Even if you're not understanding my argument, my opponent has forfeited all of his rounds *shrugs*