Why leave out trees in talk of 'justice'?
I WOULD be interested to know what Jenny Moxhan's definition of "justice” is in her letter to the editor "Usher in a more just world” (QT 18/07/).
Isn't it much more than "fair treatment”?
"Justice” is a legal term that refers to a system of laws in a country that judges and punishes people.
"Social justice” refers to the fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all people are to be treated equal and without prejudices.
Both definitions refer to people and only people would have the understanding to acknowledge fair treatment.
Biblical justice involves making individuals, communities, and the whole universe accountable, by upholding goodness and impartiality. In James 1:27, it is claimed that "religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
Justice is essentially just living.
According to Jenny, "all living beings have a right to (justice).”
This poses a problem. What is a "living being”?
A tree is just as much alive as a man.
It not only breathes but it has circulation, it digests its food and it has sex processes.
So why are we extending this "just world” to "animals” (without a legal system for animals and by animals) at the expense of and with complete disregard of the plant world where we rob them of their skin, their seeds, their foliage, their colour and finally, their lives.