The Difference Between Law and Justice (Concluding)

 In this video you will hear the word conscious, justice and the law. We have talked a lot in this running example about moral conscious, the term justice as supporting a healthy society, and the law as applied (fairly or unfairly). We can view moral conscious as a type of higher moral reasoning, justice as fundamental to collective existence (i.e. a soul of a nation as codified in our oaths and social contracts "...with liberty and justice for all"), and the law as a tool to ensure that these higher ideals are enacted as closely as possible for the benefit of society i.e. We the People (In our system we elect politicians to pass the laws that reach for the highest values and we pay judges to enact the law based on higher moral sentiments. At least this is the ideal.).

 While the law will never truly obtain the purity of justice it should seek to do so with earnestness. Moral conscious is the lens by which we can seek/understand a union between justice and the law. If you lack moral conscious (i.e. immoral) then you cannot truly be trusted to understand the fundamentals of justice or law as the tool to obtaining justice (as best as possible). Inserting consistently lower values (racism, bigotry, extremism social/financial corruption, etc.) into a system of higher ideals leads to either eventual problem correction (adapting upwards to a higher form) or to a decline in trust of institutions (backsliding to a weaker form.). 

As trust in institutions rises so does social harmony through a shared sense of existence and commitment to overarching ideals (Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, Constitution, human/civil rights). If there is not a commitment to important shared fundamental values (i.e. universal values) then we will find institutional trust declining as bad actors bring forward alternative goals (i.e. not based in our shared understandings.). Upon that strain, the law must always reach for justice within the broader understanding of moral conscious that applies to all members claimed as part of a society. Where it does not, we find a default or failure (This is why different people see different things based on their experiences and interpretation of those experiences. That difference can be an opportunity to further strength if used well or a weakness if not used well. ). 

If you follow the hypothetical learning example we already concluded that the vast majority of people are doing the right thing but there are few backstops to bad actors (i.e. an opportunity to fill a gap in the divergent application of the law, that seeks to reach for justice within the context of moral conscious.). Thus we should also logically find a slow moving correction where awareness of inconsistencies leads to an increased understanding of the benefits of adapting towards the highest ideals we all agree upon (social contacts). Remember this story has a positive outcome that comes from learning. 

*This is a hypothetical example for learning purposes. A type of thought experiment on Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, Constitution, human/civil rights. Take with a grain of salt.