See, that's the fun thing! The answers I got from people were so varied, I wanted to leave the question open and slightly ambiguous. So I guess what I'd ask you is, how would you define it? Wonderful link by the way. I'm reading it now and thoroughly enjoying it.How do you define Justice?
I think your two cents says a lot, actually. They feel more like four, or even eight cents. :P If you're willing to elaborate, I'm curious to hear what holes you're willing to poke into your definition.Either way, I know that I didn't answer your original question. That's just my two cents.
::Squints Angrily:: You would reduce it to a math problem, wouldn't you? That aside, I think it's a great illustration as to the perils of vigilantism and at the same time illustrates the need for structured law based on fairness and investigation. So let me ask you this. Do you think the action and the reaction need to be identical to have the same value? Not necessarily in the whole framing scenario, but in that often the idea of "an eye for an eye" comes to be unreasonable for a whole list of reasons.