On Justice and Morality

The question of whether morality and justice are absolute or arbitrary has long occupied the minds of philosophers and even scientists.

Are they absolute concepts or contingent constructs? In this essay, I will attempt to answer this question and analyze the issue rationally and logically.

1. Morality

a. The concept of morality from a neurological and biological perspective

Morality is a set of behaviors and mental tendencies that regulate social interaction. It arises from neural activity in specific brain regions, such as the frontal lobe, amygdala, and limbic system, and is supported by the biological bases of emotions, empathy, and the capacity for moral evaluation and decision-making. Any disruption in these behaviors or mental tendencies inevitably leads to a disturbance in an individual’s moral balance, impairing the ability to distinguish right from wrong.

b. Evolution of moral concepts and behaviors in human ancestors

From a neuroscience and evolutionary biology perspective, morality did not suddenly appear in modern humans. Rather, it is an extension of the social behavior observed in higher mammals, especially great apes. Many behaviors that we call “primitive morality,” such as empathy, cooperation, partial fairness, and resource sharing, are present in chimpanzees and gorillas, indicating deep evolutionary roots

With the evolution of the human prefrontal cortex and other brain regions responsible for abstract thinking and decision-making, morality became more complex, encompassing principles such as justice, rights, responsibility, and sophisticated social rules.

c. Summary

From the above, we can conclude that morality is not absolute, as some ancient philosophers and thinkers believed, but rather a relative, evolutionary construct that changes with eras and cultures.

2. Justice

a. The concept of justice

Justice is a concept that evolved alongside human consciousness. In ancient, primitive societies, the primary aim of justice was deterrence and the preservation of societal interests. From a biological perspective, its purpose was pragmatic rather than idealistic; it did not aim to establish absolute justice.

b. Potential development of justice to better serve society

For instance, instead of applying conventional punitive law by imprisoning a criminal for a fixed period and releasing them regardless of their readiness to reintegrate, it is more effective to place them in a rehabilitative system and attempt to integrate them as a functional member of society.

c. Flexibility in law to serve societal interests

For example, if a criminal is in a rehabilitative program, early release could be granted if reintegration is successful, benefiting society. Conversely, if. rehabilitation fails and the individual remains a threat, the sentence could be extended. Ultimately, law is a human construct that should adapt to societal welfare without unfairly punishing the individual.

d. Are justice and its application absolute or relative?

The simple and logical answer is that justice is relative. For instance, consider a serial offender with biological predispositions toward criminal behavior, who commits murder. If the victim’s family demands retribution, strict application of retributive justice would itself constitute injustice, since the perpetrator is biologically predisposed and not entirely autonomous. However, the criminal still poses a societal risk, which conflicts with the primary function of law: protecting the community. Therefore, the individual should either be rehabilitated or, if impossible, remain imprisoned indefinitely to safeguard societal interests.

3. My personal moral system:

Name of the System:

Evolutionary Individual Ethics

Core Principles

The Individual as the Basic Ethical Unit

All moral evaluations start with the conscious individual and their direct interests.

Reward and Harm Reduction

Ethical actions are those that increase the individual’s reward and minimize direct harm to them.

Indirect Harm Matters

Any harm to social structures, environment, or systems that individuals rely on is considered, weighted by the probability it will affect individuals in the future.

Exceptional Voluntary Sacrifice

In rare, extreme cases, an action that harms the individual may be ethically permissible if it is voluntary and necessary to prevent greater harm to other individuals.