I hate this niggley thoughts that invade and take over, grow with questions and argument within the pea-sized space of my brain.
To fight for justice, and to fight against injustice, are not the same by way of motive and possible outcome. To argue and take a stand on what is thought to be right and fair, carries with it little burden since true unbiased justice would assume that all parties would come through dealt with in good manner. It is assuming that there is a reasonable and fair standard by which we can judge what is right, and that all are seeking the same thing in the end result of fairness.
Justice is everyone getting to wear a red shirt.
To fight against injustice assumes that injury is or is a possible outcome to an act. That wrong is in the making–a clearcut wrong that must be reversed to an even ground. Is this the scales of justice? I always wondered if it represented pros and cons, or good and bad, or should be balanced at an equal level. The last, I should think, and that would represent a compromise.
Injustice is having to wear a red shirt.
What is intent and motivation? Is it more noble to battle against a wrong as it is done with intervention and prevention of injury, or rather to seek equality across the board in stating justice–regardless of the outfall.
Yes, I need philosophy today. Or maybe just a piece of chocolate cake.
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology