What was justice like 200,000 years ago?

The first agents of justice were the "alpha male" and the "alpha female", I guess. The tribal chief, likely a father or a mother, leader of the dominant family in the tribe, must have emerged out of that. Somewhere along the line, being arbiter over domestic problems was part of a chief's function. At some point, perhaps when media of exchange was introduced, there emerged royalty, leaders of the dominant families of the dominant tribes. And of course, let us not forget about the heads of empires, leaders of the dominant families of the dominant tribes of the dominant kingdoms. There seems to be a pattern, but it isn't absolute, since not all of the leadership is based in dominance. We'd also have to wonder about the concepts of "honor" and "faith" come into play. We wind up with overlapping jurisdictions and thus overlapping justices.

How old is justice, would you say? Did it exist before life on Earth or did humans create it? I think humans created it, and that's largely on account of ruling out non-human but sapient higher powers that may have existed on Earth, in outer space, in all of space, in an alternate space or "dimension" or outside of a multiverse. Isn't it Occam's razor and a number of other principles that tells us it is a waste to entertain such speculation? As it stands, justice is a sapient creation, but perhaps non-sapient sentient beings also have justice-oriented "innate" behaviors. At any rate, justice involves an agent of justice. How can it exist independently of a thinking and feeling actor?

Is it something real or just a system of conduct (like using names or money)? It's not so unlike names, mnemonics, nomenclature, nomy and nomics, but I couldn't tell anybody how much.


And as to what justice was like, I think summary execution was answer to a wide variety of things that threatened the survival of the tribe, but a good arse-beating and intimidation was the answer to most offenses albeit less jeopardizing of tribal well-being. Somewhere in there, emasculation or other mutilation fit in. It's unclear at what point that primates—or for that matter, which primates apart obviously from Homo Sapiens Sapiens—started developing detective skills and strategies, like solving deaths and stuff. They may have had stronger senses of smell that could lead them to become suspicious of homicide if the dead body of a tribe member smelled like another tribe member, a confrontational one, as opposed to something different. Almost assuredly, just quickly as societies started developing ways to solve homicides, murders developed ways to commit frame jobs and cover-ups. When we think about how the story of Macbeth plays out, it's very interesting to see how limited people were back during the era in which the play was written. The uniqueness of every human finger hadn't been discovered or widely recognized until our more recent era.

This is very interesting question.

I am assuming that we must take one of two viewpoints here.

Is justice a natural law or was it a concept that appeared when humanity began to reason and use language as 'justice' is completely unobservable in the animal kingdom, even in the higher primates, they maybe outraged that another animal has taken from them but I doubt that they would continue to harbor the continual need for somekind of equal recompense.

Without the sense of equality can there be a sense of justice?

If we take the extreme viewpoint that one is completely inferior to the needs and wants of another who is superior then there is no longer room for justice to balance the scales of fairness, as the right to equality is not recognizable.

I was just reading about the Sacred Scriptures of Confucianism today so your question rang a bell here :)

Confucius teaches that Justice 'Yi' is a Natural Law and has been embedded into our consciousness upon birth and is one aspect of the many Virtues that we naturally recognize as part of the Universe.

The first agents of justice were the "alpha male" and the "alpha female", I guess. The tribal chief, likely a father or a mother, leader of the dominant family in the tribe, must have emerged out of that. Somewhere along the line, being arbiter over domestic problems was part of a chief's function. At some point, perhaps when media of exchange was introduced, there emerged royalty, leaders of the dominant families of the dominant tribes. And of course, let us not forget about the heads of empires, leaders of the dominant families of the dominant tribes of the dominant kingdoms. There seems to be a pattern, but it isn't absolute, since not all of the leadership is based in dominance. We'd also have to wonder about the concepts of "honor" and "faith" come into play. We wind up with overlapping jurisdictions and thus overlapping justices.Well put.

As it stands, justice is a sapient creation, but perhaps non-sapient sentient beings also have justice-oriented "innate" behaviors. At any rate, justice involves an agent of justice. How can it exist independently of a thinking and feeling actor?That depends on the exact nature of its existence.

And as to what justice was like, I think summary execution was answer to a wide variety of things that threatened the survival of the tribe, but a good arse-beating and intimidation was the answer to most offenses albeit less jeopardizing of tribal well-being. Somewhere in there, emasculation or other mutilation fit in. It's unclear at what point that primates—or for that matter, which primates apart obviously from Homo Sapiens Sapiens—started developing detective skills and strategies, like solving deaths and stuff. They may have had stronger senses of smell that could lead them to become suspicious of homicide if the dead body of a tribe member smelled like another tribe member, a confrontational one, as opposed to something different.That's "law" enforcement which overlaps questions of justice but is not the same thing.

Almost assuredly, just quickly as societies started developing ways to solve homicides, murders developed ways to commit frame jobs and cover-ups."Murder" is a fiction but yes, killers not "sanctioned" by the realm to kill (e.g. soldiers or people defending themselves and their "property") developed ways of evading the people "enforcing the "law of the realm".

When we think about how the story of Macbeth plays out, it's very interesting to see how limited people were back during the era in which the play was written. The uniqueness of every human finger hadn't been discovered or widely recognized until our more recent era.
Well, the uniqueness of a person's DNA hadn't been discoverd either.

Also, this: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706

Is justice a natural law or was it a concept that appeared when humanity began to reason and use language as 'justice' is completely unobservable in the animal kingdom, even in the higher primates, they maybe outraged that another animal has taken from them but I doubt that they would continue to harbor the continual need for somekind of equal recompense.I guess first we'd define what a natural "law" is and see if justice measures up.

Without the sense of equality can there be a sense of justice?
I guess that comes down to what sort of sense of justice is discussed.

If we take the extreme viewpoint that one is completely inferior to the needs and wants of another who is superior then there is no longer room for justice to balance the scales of fairness, as the right to equality is not recognizable.
"Rights" are a fiction but I would like an example of inferor and superior. Do you mean such as an intelligent educated able-bodied man contributing to a society compared to a barely literate badly handicapped man who charges that equality demands society provide him the exact same as the able man?

I was just reading about the Sacred Scriptures of Confucianism today so your question rang a bell here :)

Confucius teaches that Justice 'Yi' is a Natural Law and has been embedded into our consciousness upon birth and is one aspect of the many Virtues that we naturally recognize as part of the Universe.
I guess that goes back to defining what a natural "law" is.

Also, this: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706

define what a natural "law" is and see if justice measures up.

I think we would have to equate 'Justice' with 'Equality' if we are to observe it actually functioning in the world around us.

Maybe it is not a coincidence that 'Justice' is depicted blind-folded and holding a balancing scale. It would be easy to go into physics and show a number of natural physical laws that seem to obey a sense of 'Equality'

Water always seeking it's own level- for example or the constant speed of light across the known universe.

guess that comes down to what sort of sense of justice is discussed.

We should probably only be concerned with the kind of justice that effects us and those around us. Justice as a physical law is fascinating but it does not relieve human suffering caused by the actions of individuals.

"Rights" are a fiction but I would like an example of inferior and superior. Do you mean such as an intelligent educated able-bodied man contributing to a society compared to a barely literate badly handicapped man who charges that equality demands society provide him the exact same as the able man?

Your classic sociopath would be a good start, they are incapable of recognizing the innate rights of anyone that brings into question the actual fulfillment of their own wants and desires, this does not make them smarter or stronger or more able-bodied but totally lacking the ability to perceive another on the grounds of equal fairness. They appear a law unto themselves-to themselves and the ends justify the means-always.

Obviously they are perceived as mentally disturbed but give them the right chaotic circumstance (When Justice and Liberty are forsaken for brutality and naked ambitions)and they will sometimes excel in their attainments and authority.

I had a discussion earlier and was reminded that it has often been thought that the 'greater the position someone holds in society the greater the penalty should be for their criminal acts'. When a common thief steals someone's wallet, he only harms one individual but when a political leaders steals the treasury, they steal from everyone and cause widespread (generational) suffering.

Why don't we hold our leaders to a harsher standard and punishment?

LOL- sad to say, because our 'Superiors' are writing the rules- do we approve of this secretly because maybe someday in our striving for greatness, we might sit in that chair of UNJUST privileges and reap the rewards also.

Allowing various injustices to continually occur, as a loophole for our own future ambitions- rather scary- isn't :(

I think we would have to equate 'Justice' with 'Equality' if we are to observe it actually functioning in the world around us.
Well, we don't "have to" anything but yes, there is a definite link to equality.

Maybe it is not a coincidence that 'Justice' is depicted blind-folded and holding a balancing scale.It isn't a coincidence, as far as I know it's that it ideally doesn't favor rich over poor, Caucasian over non-Caucasian, "noble" over "commoner" etc.

Water always seeking it's own level- for example or the constant speed of light across the known universe.I'm not a scientist but isn't that due to entropy? Like if you shake a container with white and black grains that weigh the same you'll get an even mix, they won't separate back into black and white.

We should probably only be concerned with the kind of justice that effects us and those around us.
In my experience no, there is nothing we "should" do. "Should" is made up.

Justice as a physical law is fascinating but it does not relieve human suffering caused by the actions of individuals.
One could argue that justice (in most senses of the word) and suffering are no more mutually exclusive than equality and suffering are.

Your classic sociopath would be a good start, they are incapable of recognizing the innate rights of anyone
I repeat: "Rights" are a fiction.

that brings into question the actual fulfillment of their own wants and desires, this does not make them smarter or stronger or more able-bodied but totally lacking the ability to perceive another on the grounds of equal fairness. They appear a law unto themselves-to themselves and the means justify the ends-always."Laws" and "justification" are also fictions.

Obviously they are perceived as mentally disturbed but give them the right chaotic circumstance (When Justice and Liberty are forsaken for brutality and naked ambitions)and they will sometimes excel in their attainments and authority.
Excelling is irrelevant to the truth.

I had a discussion earlier and was reminded that it has often been thought that the 'greater the position someone holds in society the greater the penalty should be for their criminal acts'. When a common thief steals someone's wallet, he only harms one individual but when a political leaders steals the treasury, they steal from everyone and cause widespread (generational) suffering.I think that is more the idea of "Let the punishment fit the crime" since if you were trusted by a thousand people there were a hundred victims as opposed to being one stranger who assaults one stranger.
(To clarify, "crimes" and "thieves" are fictions while assult, victims and suffering are not.)

Why don't we hold our leaders to a harsher standard and punishment?
We humans can answer "how come" questions but have we answered a single "why" question? How come the sun shines? We can answer that going back billions of years. Why does it shine? Why do humans have two eyes or invent the wheel? Well, we can answer how come.

LOL- sad to say, because our 'Superiors' are writing the rules- do we approve of this secretly because maybe someday in our striving for greatness, we might sit in that chair of UNJUST privileges and reap the rewards also.

Allowing various injustices to continually occur, as a loophole for our own future ambitions- rather scary- isn't :(
I suppose there is truth to that.

Also, this: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706

Mankind is ca 3.4 million years old, homo sapiens sapiens ca 200,000 years old. Says who?